Trenberth’s upcoming AMS meeting talk: ClimateGate Thoughts

Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) a U.S. publicly funded research center, uses the term “denier” six times in this upcoming talk, which he has submitted as a preprint to the American Meteorological Society (AMS) in full public view. I’m reproducing it in full below, with only one comment: he uses the word “denier” six times in his address, one that will reach hundreds if not thousands of AMS members. I’m disappointed that the AMS embraces this language. His planned talk is enlightening, I suggest that everyone read it in full. Dr. Trenberth also helpfully includes his NCAR email address in the publicly available document, such that if anyone has any suggestions for him on how he might improve this address to the AMS before he gives it, he can be sent comments.

This talk is in honor of my friend and colleague Stephen Schneider, who was pre-eminent in communicating climate change to the public. I have given many public talks on climate change, and I have always tried to emphasize the observational facts and their interpretation, rather than the less certain projections into the future. I will illustrate how I have always tried to present the material in a fairly policy neutral way, and I have pointed out ways to encourage discussion about value systems and why these lead to potentially different actions about what one does about climate change. For many years now I have been an advocate of the need for a climate information system, of which a vital component is climate services, but it is essential to recognize that good climate services and information ride upon the basic observations and their analysis and interpretation. The WCRP Observations and Assimilation Panel, which I have chaired for 6 years, has advocated for the climate observing system and the development of useful products. Moving towards a form of operational real time attribution of climate and weather events is essential, but needs to recognize the shortcomings of models and understanding (or the uncertainties, as Steve would say). Given that global warming is unequivocal, the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming rather than the inane statements along the lines of “of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming”. That kind of comment is answering the wrong question.

===============================================================

The above is the foreword posted on the AMS website along with the link to the PDF there. Here’s the text of PDF of his upcoming talk, which I’ve saved locally also in case the main one disappears or is changed.

1. INTRODUCTION: CLIMATEGATE
This article briefly summarizes my views that have formed in recent years on communicating climate change in the light of first hand experiences in so-called “climategate”. The latter term refers to the emails and personal information about individuals, including me, that were illegally taken from the University of East Anglia through a hacking incident. The material published relates to the work of the globally-respected Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and other scientists around the world. The selective publication of some stolen emails taken out of context and distorted is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with the climate change issue in a responsible way. Instead there should be condemnation of the abuse, misuse and downright lies about the emails: that should be the real climategate!
I was involved in just over 100 of the hacked email messages. In my case, one cherry-picked email quote went viral and at one point it was featured in over 110,000 items (in Google). Here is the quote: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability. But that is the way a vast majority of the internet stories and blogs interpreted it.

Several of the emails document the detailed procedures used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR4 Fourth Assessment report for Chapter 3 (for which Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth were coordinating lead authors) and other chapters. In a hacked email from Phil Jones (not cc’d to me), he wrote: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” AR4 was the first time Jones was on the writing team of an IPCC Assessment. The comment was naïve and sent before he understood the process and before any lead author meetings were held. It was not sanctioned by me. Both of the papers referred to were in fact cited and discussed in the IPCC. As a veteran of 3 previous IPCC assessments I was well aware that we do not keep any papers out, and none were kept out. We assessed all papers even though not all could be included owing to space limitations. Moreover, the extensive review process, which is a hundred times more rigorous than that for any individual paper, brought to our attention any papers we may have missed.

Three investigations of the alleged scientific misconduct of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia — one by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, a second by the Scientific Assessment Panel of the Royal Society, chaired by Lord Oxburgh, and the latest by the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review, chaired by Sir Muir Russell — have confirmed what climate scientists have never seriously doubted: established scientists depend on their credibility and have no motivation in purposely misleading the public and their colleagues. Moreover, they are unlikely to make false claims that other colleagues can readily show to be incorrect. They are also understandably (but inadvisably) reluctant to share complex data sets with non-experts that they perceive as charlatans (Hasselman 2010).

Scientists make mistakes and often make assumptions that limit the validity of their results. They regularly argue with colleagues who arrive at different conclusions. These debates follow the normal procedure of scientific inquiry. The IPCC assessments are a means of taking stock and avoiding some of the “noise” created by the different approaches and thereby providing conservative but robust statements about what is known and what is not.

2. THE DENIERS
But their critics are another matter entirely, and their false claims have not been scrutinized or criticized anything like enough! Perhaps climategate comes from the somewhat inept response of climate scientists to criticisms from various sources. The climate change deniers have very successfully caused major diversions from the much needed debate about what to do about climate change and how to implement it. It is important that climate scientists learn how to counter the distracting strategies of deniers. Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended. In a debate it is impossible to counter lies, and caveated statements show up poorly against loudly proclaimed confident statements that often have little or no basis. Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. Moreover a debate actually gives alternative views credibility. On the other hand there is a lot of scope for debate about exactly what to do about the findings.

3. THE MEDIA
The media have been complicit in this disinformation campaign of the deniers. Climate varies slowly and so the message remains similar, year after year — something not exciting for journalists as it is not “news”. Controversy is the fodder of the media, not truth, and so the media amplify the view that there are two sides and give unwarranted attention to views of a small minority or those with vested interests or ideologies. The climate deniers have been successful in by-passing peer review yet attracting media attention. In those respects the media are a part of the problem. But they have to be part of the solution.

4. THE SCIENTISTS
The main societal motivation of climate scientists is to understand the dynamics of the climate system (both natural and human induced), and to communicate this understanding to the public and governments. Most climate scientists have the goal of establishing the best information about the state of affairs as a basis for subsequent discussion about what to do about it: policy relevant but not policy prescriptive. They have faith in the scientific method and the efficacy of the established peer-review process in separating verifiable scientific results from baseless assertions. They find it disturbing that blogs by uninformed members of the public are given equal weight with carefully researched information backed up with extensive observational facts and physical understanding.
While statements about climate change are cautious and all sorts of caveats are applied by scientists, or else they are criticized by colleagues, the same is not true for the deniers. Many scientists withdraw from the public arena into the Ivory Tower after being bruised in skirmishes with the public via the press. Others are diverted from their science to address the concerns. There is continued pressure to do policy relevant but not policy prescriptive science. Scientists who cross the line to being advocates for courses of action are often perceived as pariahs by their colleagues because their science is potentially biased.

Many scientists also do not help with regard to communicating the role of global warming in climate. Prior to the 2007 IPCC report, it was appropriate for the null hypothesis to be that “there is no human influence on climate” and the task was to prove that there was. The burden of proof is high. In general in this case, scientists assume that there is no human influence and to prove that there is requires statistical tests to exceed the 95% confidence level (5% significance level) to avoid a chance finding of a false positive. To declare erroneously that the null hypothesis is not correct is called a type I error, and the science is very conservative in this regard about making such an error. Scientists are thus prone to make what are called type II errors whereby they erroneously accept the null hypothesis when it is in fact false.

Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence. Such a null hypothesis is trickier because one has to hypothesize something specific, such as “precipitation has increased by 5%” and then prove that it hasn’t. Because of large natural variability, the first approach results in an outcome suggesting that it is appropriate to conclude that there is no increase in precipitation by human influences, although the correct interpretation is that there is simply not enough evidence (not a long enough time series). However, the second approach also concludes that one cannot say there is not a 5% increase in precipitation. Given that global warming is happening and is pervasive, the first approach should no longer be used. As a whole the community is making too many type II errors.

So we frequently hear that “while this event is consistent with what we expect from climate change, no single event can be attributed to human induced global warming”. Such murky statements should be abolished. On the contrary, the odds have changed to make certain kinds of events more likely. For precipitation, the pervasive increase in water vapor changes precipitation events with no doubt whatsoever. Yes, all events! Even if temperatures or sea surface temperatures are below normal, they are still higher than they would have been, and so too is the atmospheric water vapor amount and thus the moisture available for storms. Granted, the climate deals with averages. However, those averages are made up of specific events of all shapes and sizes now operating in a different environment. It is not a well posed question to ask “Is it caused by global warming?” Or “Is it caused by natural variability?” Because it is always both. It is worth considering whether the odds of the particular event have changed sufficiently that one can make the alternative statement “It is unlikely that this event would have occurred without global warming.” For instance, this probably applies to the extremes that occurred in the summer of 2010: the floods in Pakistan, India, and China and the drought, heat waves and wild fires in Russia.

Another point is that we have substantial natural climate variability from events like El Niño and La Niña. Given that global warming is always going in one direction, it is when natural variability and global warming reinforce one another that records are broken and extremes occur. This takes place with warming in the latter part of and shortly after an El Niño event, for instance, as has happened in 2010.

When asked about what could and should be done about climate change, many scientists back away for fear of being labeled advocates. However, scientists should note that the IPCC strives to carry out policy relevant but not policy prescriptive science assessments, with considerable success. Given the physical science findings, what are the ramifications for society and the environment? It is important for scientists to recognize that Working Group II of IPCC deals extensively with the past and future expected impacts of climate change, the vulnerabilities that exist, and the adaptation and coping strategies for dealing with these. Similarly, Working Group III deals with options for mitigating the problem by reducing future emissions of greenhouse gases. Scientists should recognize that these options exist and, to the extent they are familiar with them, state what they are. Scientists should also be aware of the national and international discussions and negotiations underway to address the problem. Putting a price on carbon, carbon taxes and offsets, and cap and trade systems can be discussed in a neutral way to inform the public.

Personally, I close this aspect of my presentations with a statement that “you will be
affected by climate change, and you already are, whether you believe it or not. But more than that, you will be affected by the outcomes of legislation and international treaties, perhaps even more!” As an example of misguided legislation one can point to the subsidies for production of ethanol from corn in the United States which produces marginal gains in fuel without adequately accounting for the damage to soils and other environmental aspects, and effects on the food supply.

5. THE POLITICIANS
The argument is that to make decisions, all aspects of the problem must be taken into account and it is the politicians who are supposed to do this, not the scientists, in order to represent all interests. My own observation is that while some politicians are indeed well informed and understand their role, most are not. The corrupting influence of funding from all sources of vested interests prevents many of them from doing the right thing on behalf of the country and civilization as a whole. It is clear that climate science has become politicized, and scientists are slow to recognize this. Politicians hide behind the apparent uncertainties and have failed to act. Hence while politicians are often also part of the problem, implementation of policies necessarily goes through them.
In the days of hundreds of TV channels and the internet, people do not have to hear “inconvenient truths” and become informed. As scientists we can continue to try with our message of what is happening and why, what is expected in the future, and what options there are to change the outcome, but we need to do more.

6. WHAT CAN BE DONE?
Environmental groups and one segment of scientists have focused on what is called “mitigation” that aims to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and slow and ultimately stop climate change in its tracks. Decarbonizing the economy is very important for many reasons, not the least of which is climate change. However, by itself, I view this as short-sighted, as the steps required are so revolutionary as to be highly unlikely to be achieved. Instead, we must recognize that while there is considerable merit in slowing the pace of climate change, and we should work to reduce emissions, it is also essential that much stronger steps be taken to plan for and adapt to the change that is surely coming. How we cope with challenges ahead and build more resiliency in our system, are major questions that should be higher on the agenda.

The major failures in making progress, such as in Copenhagen in December 2009, imply that we should be more accepting that climate disasters are inevitable, along with environmental refugees, and so what are we going to do with them? Some steps in this direction were taken in the recent meeting in Cancun. It is too bad if success means that we are able to limit the outcome to an ongoing series of environmental disasters that inevitably happen locally as hurricanes strike, heat waves and wild fires take their toll, droughts cause famine, and water shortages or flooding (ironically — in different places, or different times) cause mayhem. The summer of 2010 with floods in Pakistan, India, and China, and devastating drought, heat waves and wild fires in Russia, is a case in point. Indeed, 2010 provided many such examples from the New England flooding and “Snowmageddon” in the Washington D.C. area in February and March to the flooding in California associated with a “Pineapple Express” of moisture from extending from the Hawaiin Islands to California in December. Growth of these disasters into a major catastrophe, war and strife, is something to be avoided if at all possible, but it is likely where we are headed.

The growing population and demands for higher standards of living mean that the planet is already over-populated, and far too many things are simply not sustainable in anything like their current form. The atmosphere is a global commons, shared by all. As we continue to exploit it and use it as a dumping ground, the outcome is the “tragedy of the commons” and we all lose. Unfortunately, society is not ready to face up to these challenges and the needed changes in the way we create order and govern ourselves. Population issues are largely missing from the discussion, such as it is. Nonetheless, a number of pragmatic steps are possible, but they require planning for decades ahead, not simply the time until the next election.

Building a better observing system for climate, better climate and earth system models and predictions, and the associated improved information system and climate services is one essential step (Trenberth 2008) as it reduces uncertainties, but uncertainties and natural variability are never going away. Nevertheless, the natural variability provides valuable opportunities for ongoing “news” and education, as teachable moments, but many scientists have not been helpful, and many TV weathercasters are poorly informed and sometimes downright hostile (Wilson 2009).

It continues to be frustrating at how difficult it is to find out just what has happened and the context from US government sources. Ironically, it is easier to find a forecast (e.g., http://www.cpc.noaa.gov ), than it is to find and analysis and assessment of what has happened and why. Waiting 6 years for the next IPCC report is not an option. The media continue to report highly misleading material about how cold outbreaks, snow events, or one cold month nullifies global warming when the big picture continues to indicate otherwise.

Routine climate services and regular assessments of the state of the climate and the short-term prognosis as part of a climate service, much as is done for weather forecasts, is an essential development. At present this is being approached at best in a piecemeal fashion, and the needed investment is not available. It should be a high priority and linked to any climate legislation on mitigation and adaptation.

Climate change is a complex and multifaceted problem, involving not just the environment, but also energy, water, sustainability, the economy, foreign policy and trade, security and defense. Far too little is happening on all fronts: communicating and informing the public, reducing emissions and building new energy infrastructure by decarbonizing the economy (mitigation), and planning to cope with future climate change and its consequences.

Given that global warming is unequivocal, the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming rather than the inane statements along the lines of “of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming”.

Such people used to be tarred and feathered in the past. Unbelievable.

I may be far off the mark here and slightly off topic but once again I see climategate referred to as a hacking incident with the emails illegally taken off the servers. Has this ever been proven that it was actually hacked as I do not recall any official report coming out saying who hacked it and when but rather I see many muddied references to it being hacked in an effort to detract from the information by damaging its source.

As a lot of the information included in the emails were relevant to several FOI requests both before and after the leak of these emails, they should have already been in the public domain. Isn’t it time the warmists moved on from their you hacked us mantra and stopped causing major diversions and distractions by bigging up an unproven source for the information rather than enter into full disclosure and a complete free discussion of the information contained.

I always see these people dismissing the mikes trick, however I have not seen them reply with why we should trust the data which was shown to be so polluted with garbage in the readme file. I can only assume that,careful cherry picking of the data is in operation, much like it is to back up the whole AGW position.

Nevertheless, the natural variability provides valuable opportunities for ongoing “news” and education, as teachable moments, but many scientists have not been helpful, and many TV weathercasters are poorly informed and sometimes downright hostile

Did I read this right? He’s basically saying that scientists should use any single “weather” event to promote the environmentalist cause (which they do, of course). It’s heartening to know that many weathermen/women have sometimes been downright hostile!

“Scientific facts are not open to debate or opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. Moreover a debate actually gives alternative views credibility.”

In Trenberth’s mind the concepts of Science and Religion are completely switched.

A fact which is “not open to debate” is by pure definition NOT a scientific fact. It is an axiom of faith for the adherents of one particular faith. And the entire purpose of science is to bring in alternative views for some form of debate or counterpoint.

His section on the media turned me right off anything else valuable he might have to say, with its complete cognitive dissonance and circular arguing.

The media have been complicit in this disinformation campaign of the deniers.

How anyone can see the MSM in the US, UK or Australia as anything but enthusiastic shills for AGW beats me. And to say the MSM has deliberately chosen such a stance (which is what the word ‘complicit’ means), is a serious if equally absurd charge.

..the media amplify the view that there are two sides and give unwarranted attention to views of a small minority … In those respects the media are a part of the problem. But they have to be part of the solution.

That only holds if you have already decided in advance what ‘the solution’ is, and so expect the MSM to do your bidding.

Trenberth et al need to realise that the more they make these shrill and repetitive denunciations of ‘deniers’, the more people turn off from their message.

Well there we go. Science shouldn’t be debated or questioned by the unwashed masses since scientists are supreme beings, all deniers should be totally ignored and never engaged. ….. scientists never overstate the obvious, man made global warming has been proven with a greater than 95% confidence, and EVERY weather event is caused by AGW.

The guy is an absolute nut! He isn’t a scientist, he thinks he is a PROPHET!

´Growth of these disasters into a major catastrophe, war and strife, is something to be avoided if at all possible, but it is likely where we are headed.´ – section 6. WHAT CAN BE DONE?
Imposing taxes on successful civilizations, in order to bribe failed cultures, neither answers the question nor is ethical.

What a sickening piece. I read as far as “Scientists make mistakes …” and decided I’d given this idiot too much of my time.

Scientists don’t make mistakes. They make testable hypothesis which they then subject to test. It is not a mistake if they are wrong, because science is based on the belief that all assertions could be found to be wrong when or if the right experimental conditions were created.

That is why science progresses … because real scientists don’t think in terms of “mistakes” but in terms of “testable hypothesis” and they progress by testing those hypothesis not by stating that their best chum is a marvellous fellow and everyone who disagrees with them are therefore wrong.

Yes, all events! Even if temperatures or sea surface temperatures are below normal, they are still higher than they would have been, and so too is the atmospheric water vapor amount and thus the moisture available for storms.

Here we have the art of the unfalsifiable hypothesis: The SST are colder and the water vapor is lower but they are higher than they would have been….. ?

You should also respond directly to the AMS Executive Director, Keith Seiter, who schooled under his predecessor Dick Hallgren, who was Al Gore’s phone mate.

He has been pushing the AGW agenda (like their counterparts at the AGU) in their journals and conferences. They have been arm twisting TV mets to become evangelists for the cause, subtly hinting their seals could be at risk.

He told me personally over lunch that sites like WUWT and Icecap were not helpful to the science (his science).

Trenberth is an enigma – sometimes admitting they don’t have all the answers, and the science is not where it needs to be and other times like in this address that their thinking is not open for question.

I am gobsmacked that activist Gaian cultists such as Trenberth and Hansen remain on the public payroll while spouting their alarmist left-wing ideologies, and equally surprised that organizations such as AMS would give them a podium.

Literally ever paragraph of his presentation is a proclamation of bizarre and hypocritical Gaian nonsense, for example directing his charges at the various groups that are impeding the progress of the alarmist religion, and then asserting that “Controversy is the fodder of the media, not truth, and so the media amplify the view that there are two sides.”

“Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.”

That a scientist should endorse the idea that the correct procedure for the evaluation of science is by a political committee is very concerning.

He has noted himself that we cannot track what is really going on, that there significant parts of the additional energy expected from global warming that is missing. Yet, he is fully 100% convinced anyway, enough so that he doesn’t even want to debate it anymore.

By using the word denier and saying weathercasters are poorly informed and sometimes downright hostile I believe we have a government employee who is using hateful speech to incite. In the wake of the Arizona shootings I wonder if Obama can tell him to turn it down until we have all the evidence.

Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based.
All data here are scientific facts and physically based:http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
Not that I expect that Dr. Trenberth would read or consider it, but by any miracle if he does, I am happy answer any objections he might have, and if he is so inclined to debate it. Dr. Judith Curry thought it important enough to take a good look, and at least considered it as a possible factor in her forthcoming Arctic study.

“Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. ”

The history of science is basically the story of how one scientific ‘fact’ after another turned out to be completely wrong. In honest science everything is questioned, everything is tested and tested again, and the most important scientific technique is scepticism. Even Relativity, probably one of the most successful scientific theories, is still tested by scientists trying to find if there is anything wrong with it. Unlike AGW, Relativity has stood the test of time, and so, for the moment, it stands.
If it were not for scientific scepticism we would still believe that the sun rotates around the earth and that continents do not move.
In my humble opinion Trenberth’s statement is beneath contempt.
Chris

Anthony I’m serious about my comment. I don’t know if you would like to start a campaign whereas a general comment that all of us can use to e-mail or send to our representatives but I’ve seen it before. When everyone uses the same comment to send IMHO it’s shows unity and there is strength in numbers. Just a thought.

The verbal and mental acrobatics exhibited in this speech are breathtaking.
First we have this statement (my emphasis):“Scientists make mistakes and often make assumptions that limit the validity of their results. They regularly argue with colleagues who arrive at different conclusions.”,
with the following statement in the next segment (about ‘deniers’):“Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. Moreover a debate actually gives alternative views credibility.”

So while scientists argue with those who arrive at different conclusions, this debate is actually quite wrong, because credibility is being given to these alternative views?
IAW, you can argue if you’re part of The Team, but only with members of The Team. Everybody else must not be allowed to utter a word?
Reminds me powerfully of Lysenkoism – but perhaps we should count ourselves lucky that we’re not ending up in GULAGs or psychiatric clinics …

Oh – and if scientific facts are evidence and/or physically based, doesn’t that imply that climate science models are, ahem, not science?
Unless, of course, a computer model is eo ipso both evidence and physically based.
Mind – geologists and palaeontologists have accumulated quite a nice amount of real evidence. However, this evidence isn’t sitting in computer models but relies on actual physical entities like rocks, strata or bones. We must therefore assume that, according to Trenberth, it can’t be science …

Look at the pdf and go to the cartoons at the end. It is hard to reconcile the political nature of these with the scientific method. If he lived in an earlier time I expect he would be beside James Hansen at the front of the crowd tossing logs onto fires burning deniers.

Does this man think he is God. There are many peer reviewed papers out there that state that his theory about GHG’s is a load of rubbish. I think that these prove him to be human after all and a great maker of mistakes.

““Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.””

“That a scientist should endorse the idea that the correct procedure for the evaluation of science is by a political committee is very concerning.”

That is why you cannot call someone like Trenberth a scientist. A scientists is not someone who calls themselves a scientist, nor even someone who others call a scientist. They are simply someone who uses the scientific method, and if like Trenberth, you don’t agree with the scientific method, then you have no right to call yourself a scientist or expect anyone else to do so!

I’d like to ask Mr. Trenberth about what happened to all those hurricanes he told the public, back in 2005, that were supposed to be increasing (due to climate change) but that we haven’t seen? Where did they disappear to Mr. Trenberth? His statements lead to the resignation of someone who actually knew something about hurricanes, Dr. Christopher Landsea, from the IPCC. Landsea saw no correlation and resigned in disgust. Who was right? Perhaps Trenberth should include that little story in his address to the AMS. I find it disgusting my taxpayer money funds this human piece of junk. As far as ‘denier’ is concerned I think he should be ‘denied’ any further funding.

I wholeheartedly support the points made by Dr Trenberth and may even send him an e-mail praising his bravery in standing up for his principles in these dangerous times. Bravery because I believe many climate scientists whose e-mail addresses are given out on blogs such as these get abusive and life-threatening messages and so it does take courage, knowing that there are some very sick individuals out there who think that e-mail messages are not enough.

This guy seems to miss the point, if you study the claims of the non-scientists on both sides you can find outrageously worng statements from both crowds. He is a scientist and should instead focus on the scientific claims and validity of peer reviewed papers on both sides. If he were to do that, his statements would not be as strongly negaTIVE ABOUT “DENIERS” OR AS STRONLY POSITIVE OF HIS WORLD VIEW.

We have equally fatuous comments by warmist scientists in Australia. They resemble old time religious rhetoric and attitudes. Could it be they are the emerging priests of the new religion of AGW?
The question is, will the intended audience swallow it, or will there be objections, placards, and walkouts?
I look forward to a report on the audience reaction after this propaganda piece is delivered.

Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. Moreover a debate actually gives alternative views credibility. On the other hand there is a lot of scope for debate about exactly what to do about the findings.

So no scope to discuss potential flaws in methodology then Kevin?

Most climate scientists have the goal of establishing the best information about the state of affairs as a basis for subsequent discussion about what to do about it: policy relevant but not policy prescriptive. They have faith in the scientific method and the efficacy of the established peer-review process in separating verifiable scientific results from baseless assertions.

Would that be the Phil Jones version of the scientific method?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18599-climategate-scientist-questioned-in-parliament.htmlJones conceded that he did not usually publish raw data from weather stations, which was often covered by confidentiality agreements, nor the computer codes he used to analyse the data. “It hasn’t been standard practice to do that. Maybe it should, but it’s not,” he said. ‘They never asked’ Asked whether other climate scientists reviewing his papers ever required such data, he said, “They’ve never asked.” In response to a specific question about why he had failed to grant freelance researcher Warwick Hughes access to data, he said simply, “We had a lot of work and resources tied up in it.”

This is the bit I like the most (from Kevin)…

Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence. Such a null hypothesis is trickier because one has to hypothesize something specific, such as “precipitation has increased by 5%” and then prove that it hasn’t.

In other words, the climate club should be free to run around making silly claims, should be instantly accepted, and skeptics have to do all the legwork debunking them.

Well, while he’s getting personal, this denier is loathe to take guidance from a man who looks and sounds like a character from a 70’s disaster movie. You know, the panicky idiot who causes the meteor strike / nuclear meltdown / new ice age..

His language is part of a deliberate move to shore up the ‘consensus’, as previously credulous people continue to ask awkward questions of Warmist assertions. From the beginning this has been done by framing any scrutiny of AGW dogma as an attack on science itself in the hope of nurturing an ‘us and them’ attitude amongst real scientists (you know, the ones who deal in physical observations and falsifiable hypotheses, who don’t wave around model outputs like some kind of magic staff).

This is aided by the tactic of casting critics of the orthodoxy as angry, scientifically illiterate right wing nut-jobs and – as we all know – invoking the spectre of holocaust denial (devaluing this term and its true implications as a result). A scientist wishing to examine the ‘evidence’ for her/himself beyond AGW laden abstracts and press releases is discouraged by the idea that to do so would be to undermine science itself and give power to those who would seek to attack it. Just as physicists, biologists, geologists and chemists are likely to be highly intelligent and possess strong critical faculties, they are not are immune from herd-mentality and group psychology. Nobody likes their family to be attacked by outsiders, and people from any background will always club together, form a consensus, to protect their own.

Unfortunately this tactic works, for now. I’m wondering for how long the AGW High Priests can go on imploring real scientists to avoid ‘peering behind the screen’, using poisonous mischaracterisations of their critics, while the earth continues in its refusal to fall in line with their apocalyptic predictions. I’m giving it five more years. Climate mystics like Trenberth will continue to spew forth projections of doom into the ever more distant future, hiding the ‘missing heat’ in an increasingly complex and bewildering array of asserted, often self-contradicatory climatic interactions, projected scenarios that are always somehow just round the corner, and idealised models with arbitrary ‘tipping points’ in order to shore up their flimsy confirmation-bias ridden hypotheses. It won’t matter though. By then they will be seen for the smug, self-interested, hubris-ridden panicky idiots they all really are, and will be rejected by scientists and public alike.

When you look through the whole meeting program it is easy to understand why climate change goes on and on. The meterology profession seems to be dependent on the topic for research dollars. There are so many papers on the subject – not just the so-called effects of climate change but also communication. This paper is from the second session on Communicating Climate Change. I notice Vicky Pope and David Karoly are also presenting on the subject.

The fact that Kevin Trenberth is a fellow Kiwi makes me squirm in embarrassment!
The NZ education system is quite good when judged on a world-wide basis, and has been for a very long time, as witness the achievements of Lord Rutherford, Dr Pickering (formerly of NASA ) and many others, but the odd nutter does slip through, however.
Trenberth’s nasty speech, which I could only skim after feelings of revulsion set in after a few minutes of close reading, is a wierd mix of the pseudo-religious with a Marxist flavour and is an attempt at self-justification for his past actions and statements as revealed in the ‘Climategate’ emails and also a means of venting his spite that the world is obviously disregarding his incredible expertise and knowledge which, in his lofty view, just cannot be argued with; I am sure that if the emails in question were either stolen or hacked, the Norfolk constabulary would have made a definitive statement by now. I am amazed that he feels the MSM have been aiding and abetting ‘The Deniers’ when the reverse is so obviously the case, and his use of the term ‘Deniers’ only serves to highlight the view that he is operating from an alternative reality that most of the rational populace does not share. His attack on professional weather presenters is yet another window illuminating his irrationality.
I am amazed that any professional society would accept this disgraceful rant without questioning his attitudes, his so-called facts and his name-calling. The really scary thing is that he and his cohort see this rant as normal and as professional behaviour. It is similar in tone and intent as the odd pieces that Mann wrote fot the NYT and is equally disgraceful.

“3. THE MEDIA
The media have been complicit in this disinformation campaign of the deniers. “

LOL. He should have said:
“The media have been complicit in this disinformation campaign of the Warmists.”

“The comment was naïve and sent before he understood the process and before any lead author meetings were held.”

——

From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil”http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419

Doesn’t sound like naïve to me when he used the words “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL”.

The only deniers in this whole sad saga are the Thermists. Over a decade of flat temps does nothing to prick their curiosity about the validity of AGW. Add 10 years of cooling and they still won’t budge.

“the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence. Such a null hypothesis is trickier because one has to hypothesize something specific, such as “precipitation has increased by 5%” and then prove that it hasn’t. ”

Isn’t that like going in to buy a car and demanding the auto dealership prove you don’t have the money.

“While statements about climate change are cautious and all sorts of caveats are applied by scientists, or else they are criticized by colleagues, the same is not true for the deniers.” That someone so central to the IPCC message can say something that at least as applied to the principal antagonists Mann (“scientist”) and McIntyre (“denier”) is so outrageously untrue tells you all you need to know about the judgment and/or forthrightness of those whom the world bodies have chosen to instruct us on climate.

Still, from a tactical point of view, Trenberth was probably right to lead off with many CAGW skeptics’ focus on his arguably ambiguous “travesty” quote. Skeptics may have led with their chins on that one, since it is a mere footnote to the important Climategate point: those largely in control of the IPCC message were, as many skeptics had long suspected, actively and enthusiastically subverting the scientific process by hiding data and suppressing others’ views.

Frankly I find the whole thing puerile. If this is an example of how scientists communicate then they have a long, long way to go. That any “scientist” thinks and talks like this – in terms of black and white with no shades of grey should embarrass the entire scientific community.

Scientific facts are unequivocal – so which “fact” proves unequivocally that man is causing additional warming. My understanding is that they can’t think of anything else, so it can only be anthropogenic -just like astronomers couldn’t work out why some planets appeared to go backwards when it was plainly obvious that the sun was the centre of the universe.

All critics, doubters, questioners and agnostics are called deniers and are charged with misrepresenting the facts. He seems to be in denial himself – reading this blog regularly demonstrates the thousands of people concerned enough to voice their concerns that the certainty of climate scientists is misplaced given the reliance placed on computer modelling. When anyone claims “the science is in” alarm bells start ringing in my mind – the history of science shows this is plain wrong and that there are always new facts to discover; drawing a line under science shows a closed mind.

All media support the critical position – he ought to get out more.

He appears to have missed out two categories in his list.
1) The Career Environmentalist whose future advancement is linked directly to crying wolf and getting funding for wolf traps
2) Incredibly importantly, The Man in the Street, that bolshie bloke (or blokess) who doesn’t take well to being patronised and then whizzed for a large sum of cash on the say-so of ruling elites for whom the initiatives and legislation have no personal impact other than a positive one on their careers.

And as to his cartoons …. pathetic in the first case and irrelevant in the second – who can object to energy independence, preserving rainforests etc (although I question green jobs as so often these are only a partial solution to the jobs lost in the process of developing a green economy).

In summary, his document is sour-faced bitching with absolutely nothing new to offer.

At what point can you call a person ‘evil’? His dishonesty and lies are deliberate. He doesn’t care how many thousand billion dollars, how many million jobs, and how much public trust in the case of a false diagnosis the policy implications of his vision would cost. He only sees the blind justification of his cause and disregards the rest. Repulsive.

4. THE SCIENTISTS
The main societal motivation of climate scientists is to understand the dynamics of the climate system (both natural and human induced), and to communicate this understanding to the public and governments.

Other non societal motivations include funding, prestige and going on the media to make stupid comments like the following regarding UK snow.

“According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event“.

Yeah one shocking ramble for a professional man to make.
I cringed reading it, I assume the people he is making it to will cringe too (if they do not, then lord help us all…)
Now unfortunately my comment is indeed ‘playing the man’ but again unfortunately that is what he is doing for the most of his speech.
Coming on top of the revelations on Pielke Sr’s website the other day, I admit I’m surprised by these outpourings from Trenbeth. I’d not paid too much attention to his sayings in the past, figuring he was a ‘head down’ bod, but lordy, Monbiot on steroids.
I’m actually quite taken aback.
Maybe his ‘exchange engine’ is under threat and he is having a ‘moment’…its a pita when a pet project falls apart I guess. Been there.
Thing is…is there no one on the AGW orthodoxy who can talk without engaging the emotive side of thier brains. Can’t we just talk to someone, give us anyone, who can use logic not hysterics.
Bizarre.

The current views a few prominent scientists regarding what is often referred to as global warming can only be compared to the views of fundamentalist Mormons or the views of young-earth creationists who relentlessly insist that only their views coincide with science, but more importantly, coincide with their own group’s dogma.

The typical North and Central American paleontologist poo-poos the Mormon’s insistence on the history of North and Central American peoples. I suppose these paleontologists are deniers.

The typical scientist in all life sciences poo-poo the antievolutionary rhetoric of the creationists, considering the arguments of the creationists hardly worthy of thought, often not even worthy of public debate. I suppose these scientists must also be called deniers.

The facts and history stack up as a firm fortress for the scientists against the Mormon and the creationist.

Please review the views of the climatescientologists like yourself. If you will be honest with yourself, you will see that, like the Mormon and creationist, the facts stand firm against you and your models of dogma. The earth has been much warmer throughout most of the geological record. Humans are much more adapted (and adaptable) to higher temperatures than lower. Cold kills. Warmer is better. Until the current climate dogma was forced upon us, we referred to historical warm periods as climate optima. Optima! Carbon dioxide is an essential ingredient for life. It is NOT a pollutant. Water and oxygen directly cost billions in damages and take many lives annually, worldwide. Yet I trust no one will try to label these substances as harmful pollutants and regulate them!

The bottom line is that the purported cure for feared effects of global warming are quantifiably, and with high certainty, worse than the worst case fears. In fact, “So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” (I trust you recognize the reference.) Our continued well being globally depends on innovation, individual liberty, and free market forces operating unhindered by excessive government regulation, interference, and delay.

The adage constantly proves true, follow the money. Please take off you blinders to the flood of grants pushing and corrupting scientists looking at even absurd connections and possibilities related to global warming. Please compare these billions to the thousands presumably provided by corporations to consider alternatives. Please keep in mind, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” Upton Beall Sinclair, Jr. While the assertion applies to the capitalist, it applies at least as much to the scientist.

He says “The growing population and demands for higher standards of living mean the planet is already overpopulated” and “population issues are largely missing from the discussion”.

Which segments of the global population would he eliminate? Those poor people in underdeveloped countries who aspire to a higher standard of living that includes clean water, steady food supplies, education for their children and transportation that is not on 4 legs (or 2)? Or those living in developed countries who already enjoy many of those attributes of a higher standard of living? Or should demands for a higher standard of living be eliminated, no matter makes them?

What exactly is this man saying? Whatever it is, it sounds very frightening on its face!! Malthus is alive and well in Trenberth’s mind.

I found it very difficult to read that speech. There is so much that I know to be wrong and so many philosophically based statements that I am ideologically opposed to. His use of the word ‘denier’ is an abomination. And how can he call himself a scientist and then come out with a statement like : “Moreover a debate actually gives alternative views credibility.” ??

It defies belief. I hope the AMS members start slow handclapping when he speaks such utter crap.

This is really a sign of desperation on Trenberth’s part. He sounds like he’s going “all in” (to use a poker term) because he knows that (1) public belief in CAGW is on the wane, (2) trust in climate scientists (and by extension their methods and data) has declined, (3) the US House of Representatives (which controls the purse strings for government Climate Ca$h) has changed hands and will be scrutinizing the unnecessary and wasteful programs within the climate science community (which, as we know, is receiving billions of dollars in government money).

I think Trenberth, Hansen and their ilk should resign their government-funded jobs so they can spend full time in the political arena – which is where, it appears, they now spend most of their time anyway. I’m sure George Soros, Greenpeace, WWF, etc. would readily fund their activities…

Trenberth fails to note that the evidence and/or physically based (facts) are subject to interpretation. It’s the interpretation that’s up for grabs and also, it seems there are some facts not generally taken seriously by many climate scientists, like GCR and solar influence in general. If some causative agent other than CO2 forcing make the global temperature go down far enough long enough, the CO2 forcing will be irrelevant. I’m also not satisified that they understand long-term, natural CO2 sequestration well enough. Ditto on ocean acidification.

“Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.”

How can a senior scientist say that? Surely he knows that the globe warms and cools naturally. Surely “global warming is ‘unequivocal'” during a natural warming period. Why on earth should the fact that the globe warmed recently justify assuming as the null hypothesis that humans caused it this one time out of all the other times that it happened naturally?

Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended.
======================================================
Because they keep asking such annoying questions…..

They are doing themselves in anyway, don’t need any help.

When it’s hot, it’s global warming.
When it’s record cold and snow, it’s global warming.
When it drought and floods, it’s global warming.
When it’s more hurricanes, when it’s less hurricanes.
When global temperatures go up, when they go down, when they stay the same……

People have too many things, that are much more important, on their plates right now…

Buddenbrook is right. Trenberth isn’t crazy, he is an evil man manipulating the system for personal gain. In the very first sentence, Trenberth praises Steven Schneider, who advocated lying to the public to push the CAGW agenda.

“…the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.”

This rejection of the scientific method is proposed for one simple reason: climate alarmists like Trenberth cannot show that anything out of the ordinary is occurring. The increase in CO2 has caused no verifiable harm to the planet. In fact, the only definitive result of the rise in CO2 is increased agricultural productivity.

The null hypothesis of natural climate variability falsifies the claim that the rise in a harmless and beneficial trace gas has caused any harm – so Trenberth now wants to jettison the inconvenient scientific method.

If the AMS had integrity, they would allow a response from a skeptical scientist [the only honest kind of scientist, because every scientist should be, first and foremost, a skeptic]. Trenberth rejects skeptical views because he cannot falsify their arguments.

Red Nek Engineer perhaps has the best suggestion: folks can email the AMS Executive Director, Keith Seiter, at: kseitter@ametsoc.org. Be polite but emphatic. Ask him to provide a rebuttal by a credible skeptic, such as Prof Richard Lindzen of MIT. The last thing the AMS wants is to lose credibility by publishing only one side of this contentious issue.

Sarah says:
January 13, 2011 at 3:14 am
“I may be far off the mark here and slightly off topic but once again I see climategate referred to as a hacking incident with the emails illegally taken off the servers. “

Award Trenberth an “F” for his statement. I would point out all his errors, but he’s not worth me wasting my time.

If Trenberth had any scientific evidence to prove his assertions, he would have produced them here. He did not. What we have instead is a bitter rant at everyone involved in questioning his “Global Warming” religion, which was found to be fraudulent when the Climategate emails were published.

Re. Climategate

The point that most people (including Trenberth) miss is that Jones and the CRU had been denying the existence of these emails for years to everybody with a legitimate request to access them. Then all the emails ended up in the public domain, and not only revealed while a bunch of liars Jones and the “Global Warming” worshipers are, but also that the whole CRU team had been cooking the books for years, and pretty much making it up as they went along.

Trenberth must feel very bitter that his every pronouncement is no longer being received by the hushed and overawed ignorant masses with the reverence to which he believes he is somehow entitled, and to which he has grown rather too accustomed.

Trenberth has produced nothing of scientific worth, being the incoherent, inconsistent, illogical ramblings of a mind emptied of any ideas other than of attacking those of superior intellect that have proved that he is wrong and that he has wasted his reputation and his whole working life in the pursuit of a complete lie. Trenberth is clearly unsuited to the disciplines of science, having no capacity for rational scientific debate, contradiction or correction, and should instead consider taking up some established religion or other, as he clearly can only find satisfaction when preaching to the converted.

He says: “The latter term refers to the emails and personal information about individuals, including me, that were illegally taken from the University of East Anglia through a hacking incident. The material published relates to the work of the globally-respected Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and other scientists around the world. The selective publication of some stolen emails taken out of context and distorted is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with the climate change issue in a responsible way.”

Fine, then release ALL the emails and let us judge if they were “cherry-picked”.

You say “climate change” as if that is something new. Climate has been changing since there was enough atmosphere to have weather. If you mean CO2 caused climate change, then say so.

Do you believe that the sun revolves around the earth? Well, that was “consensus science” at one point in time and it took a “denier” risking his life to say “no it doesn’t” in public.

If you want the public to be more civil and trusting, then release ALL the data, adjustments to that data and source code.

Stephen Schneider’s starting theory was Malthusian via Ehrlich. If you believe such to be the case, you are left with few non-authoritarian/totalitarian options. This is Trenberth’s post normal starting point.

This man feels himself standing with the back against a wall. This is not a speech you’d expect from a scientiest, but an agitator. How bad.
This point made me laugh though: … “While (scientists) statements about climate change are cautious …”
Can somebody remind him of Hansen’s NYC flooding prediction, death trains etc.?

… Debating them {the ‘deniers’} about the science is not an approach that is recommended. In a debate it is impossible to counter lies, and caveated statements show up poorly against loudly proclaimed confident statements that often have little or no basis. Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. Moreover a debate actually gives alternative views credibility. On the other hand there is a lot of scope for debate about exactly what to do about the findings.

So, let me understand you Trenberth. You, a scientist, are telling other scientists not to debate other human beings about the subject on which you are experts. Your reasons for this are that in a debate, it is impossible to counter lies. I find this interesting since debates are often the best place to catch your opposition in a lie and expose them. You also state that scientific facts are not open to debate, which is an interesting position to take considering if the scientific community felt so strongly in this way, then piltdown man might not have been uncovered as a fraud. Also, you seem to be saying that debate should be shut down because debates give credibility to others that should not have credibility. I would counter that open debate is the best way to expose the truth of what humanity really knows, and single-minded preachy speeches like yours are the best way to remove the light of real intellectual curiosity from the civilized world.

Very good spin. But spin nonetheless. If you have to convince the populous through spin, you don’t have all the facts yet (or you forgot to put them in your brief case), and you run the risk of appearing as a snake oil salesman.

Yes. These are the ramblings of a man who is certain he knows what’s best for everyone else (himself & his brethren excluded), considers the masses as mental/moral children to be rightfully punished for their sins, and fully committed & active in forcing it down their throats.

“As a veteran of 3 previous IPCC assessments I was well aware that we do not keep any papers out, and none were kept out. We assessed all papers even though not all could be included owing to space limitations. Moreover, the extensive review process, which is a hundred times more rigorous than that for any individual paper, brought to our attention any papers we may have missed.”

I wonder how he can quantify the superiority of the IPCC review process? It seems to me quite a few mistakes crept through, including of course the notorious Himalayan glacier melt claim. This reminds me of ‘educratic’ justification of split-grade classes in elementary school: viz. a classroom is improved by a greater diversity of experience. Never mind that the school teacher has only half the time to dedicate to each grade. “We do not keep any papers out….not all could be included owing to space limitations.” I wonder how those exclusions were decided? I wonder if the Climategate e-mails might not give a clue? Count me totally unconvinced by this sorry apology for Trenberth’s version of science.

In reading and learning from the commentators on WUWT, I take comfort in the knowledge that there will be voices of reason to repair the damage done to science after the religion of CAGW finally collapses in on itself.

If this man was worried about his travesty statement going viral….. how about what is going to happen with his unequivocal null hypothesis reversal speech. This will be quoted forever for what it really is. First rule of holes violated here… in spades.

If you find yourself deep in the mire
And have as your only desire
To be free of the mud
Which surrounds like a flood
Then your spade you should quickly retire.

Don’t keep digging and digging my friend
It’s a law mother nature will send
If you take such tact
You will it’s a fact
Robustly forever descend.

Unequivocal is this great law
No debate is allowed of its flaw
If you keep digging south
With your pen or your mouth
Your hole won’t allow your withdraw.

[Trenberth writes] Prior to the 2007 IPCC report, it was appropriate for the null hypothesis to be that “there is no human influence on climate” and the task was to prove that there was. …

That is a strawman set up to be demolished. Perhaps some who may properly called “deniers” accept that null hypothesis, but reasonable skeptics accept that human activities are responsible for some of the warming since 1880. The proper questions are: 1) Has there been net warming since 1880? 2) How much? 3) Is moderate warming bad? 4) What, if anything, should we do about it? My answers are: 1) Yes, perhaps 0.5ºC (out of the 0.8ºC supposed warming), 2) About 0.1ºC, 3) Not necessarily, and 4) Not much, since most of the warming is due to natural cycles not subject to human control, but we should make reasonable improvements in energy efficiency and, when reasonable cost-effective, use more nuclear and renewables.

Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.

Each of Trenberth’s null hypotheses is too extreme, equivalent to saying the human influence is either all black or all white, when everyone knows it is clearly shades of gray.

The butterfly effect, based on chaos theory, says a small change in some initial condition for a complex system may cause a larger effect later. (A butterfly in Africa flaps its wings a certain way and that causes a hurricane to pass over Florida rather than turn out to sea, or vice-versa.) Yes, AGW, even if it as small as I think it is, may be resposible for some increase (or decrease) in precipitation and storms, and so on. But, when compared to natural cycles, this effect is insignificant. Trenberth’s entire argument is beside the point.

What else can the Alarmists do? They have to keep pressing on. And if it means changing the narrative (more of a PR issue) to “climate extremes” (whatever that means), so be it. In the mean time, climate scientists will continue to pour out pounderous studies, spend taxpayers money, and continue to back-up large public bureaucracies. And as the EPA has shown, modern public bureaucracies by and large operate as a government within a government -beyond the voters consent.

Trenbreth is now just a bureaucrat. And good bureaucrats from time immemorial defend thier turf. Climate Science has now reached the same level as economics. It is highly political (with partisans on each side), very subjective, and is used by the government to push political outcomes.

“Building a better observing system for climate, better climate and earth system models and predictions, and the associated improved information system and climate services is one essential step (Trenberth 2008) as it reduces uncertainties, but uncertainties and natural variability are never going away. Nevertheless, the natural variability provides valuable opportunities for ongoing “news” and education, as teachable moments, but many scientists have not been helpful, and many TV weathercasters are poorly informed and sometimes downright hostile (Wilson 2009).

It continues to be frustrating at how difficult it is to find out just what has happened and the context from US government sources. Ironically, it is easier to find a forecast (e.g., http://www.cpc.noaa.gov ), than it is to find and analysis and assessment of what has happened and why. Waiting 6 years for the next IPCC report is not an option. The media continue to report highly misleading material about how cold outbreaks, snow events, or one cold month nullifies global warming when the big picture continues to indicate otherwise.

Routine climate services and regular assessments of the state of the climate and the short-term prognosis as part of a climate service, much as is done for weather forecasts, is an essential development. At present this is being approached at best in a piecemeal fashion, and the needed investment is not available. It should be a high priority and linked to any climate legislation on mitigation and adaptation.

Climate change is a complex and multifaceted problem, involving not just the environment, but also energy, water, sustainability, the economy, foreign policy and trade, security and defense. Far too little is happening on all fronts: communicating and informing the public, reducing emissions and building new energy infrastructure by decarbonizing the economy (mitigation), and planning to cope with future climate change and its consequences.”

As this is going to appear in the “Joint Presidential Session on Communicating Climate Change,” I assumed that this was a plea for more cash. Even more so if the Met Office are speaking in the same session when we know they want more cash for a “better” computer. Same old story, then!

I am quite happy to call myself a denier, if only to irritate the warmists, but reading the whole of this presentation has brought me out in a rash and I think my blood pressure has probably shot up again. I am sickened by the self-righteous, sanctimonious, belly-aching that I have just read, not least when I think of the amount of time and aggravation that people like Steve McIntyre, Ross McKittrick and many others have invested in checking out their claims.

When is Anthony’s paper on weather stations coming out? This is surely going to be another thorn in their sides. And not a moment too soon, in my opinion.

I am surprised he didn’t find the space or opportunity to talk about the Inter Academy Review of the IPCC…

Well, not really.

It might be relevant to this claim that he makes:

“While statements about climate change are cautious and all sorts of caveats are applied by scientists, or else they are criticized by colleagues”

However, the Inter Academy reviews seems to think the exact opposite at work in the IPCC…

“However, authors reported high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence. Furthermore, by making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach ‘high confidence’ to the statements. The Working Group II Summary for Policymakers contains many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective, or not expressed clearly.””

Our tax dollars pay for this guy? The inmates are running the asylum for real this time. The line about
“Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based”

It’s hard to believe anyone with a college education could actually say that. Its jaw dropping.

Even if temperatures or sea surface temperatures are below normal, they are still higher than they would have been…

I won’t say that you can’t make this claim. You can’t make this claim unless you know what they would have been. How about it? A complete historical record of what temperature would have been without CO2. Also to paraphrase from Princess Bride. Inconceivable!

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
=======================================================
Well Kevin, it says what it says………………………………….

I’d like to ask Mr. Trenberth about what happened to all those hurricanes he told the public, back in 2005, that were supposed to be increasing (due to climate change) but that we haven’t seen? Where did they disappear to Mr. Trenberth?

You must not point out observations as the are not scientific “facts” as Tenberth might say.

Remember that we have just been through the “hottest decade on the record” and 2010 was one of the “hottest years” evahhhhh. How do the warmists behave towards the evidence. Bury head in sand and say no, no, no. Yet they call us nasty names like ‘deniers’.

The Cult of AGW is so pervasive that a man who claims to be a scientist thinks nothing of abandoning the scientific method and donning the vestments of a pseudo-priest. It is very clear that science (all fields) is under assault and risks total corruption by entrenched government employees such as Trenbirth and Hansen and special interests. Sack them all. Any “scientific” society that does not call out his unscientific approach is bankrupt.

“Scientists don’t make mistakes. They make testable hypothesis which they then subject to test. It is not a mistake if they are wrong, because science is based on the belief that all assertions could be found to be wrong when or if the right experimental conditions were created.”

That sounds right. Scientists don’t make mistakes. That’s why we have engineers. Engineers make mistakes and engineers are held accountable for their mistakes. Scientists don’t make mistakes and absent mistakes there’s no blame and no accountability. Scientists are divorced from accountability and responsibility.

Trenberth has shown himself here to be a bigoted fundamentalist. I had some respect for him once, but no more. He clearly knows very little about the history of science and philosophy, the philosophy of science, epistemology, scientific methods, what scientific knowledge is and how it can be known, what the object of scientific investigation is etc etc.

No wonder science – and climate science in particular – are in a mess.

“Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended.” Quite, so, because Trenberth doesn’t know what science is. He would not stand a chance as soon as his presuppositions, biases and ignorance were exposed for all to see.

“In a debate it is impossible to counter lies, and caveated statements show up poorly against loudly proclaimed confident statements that often have little or no basis. ” Quite so, like the loudly proclaimed statements that often have little or no basis made by climate scientists.

“Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. ” None but cranks tend to dispute clear evidence; but those that are clearly open to dispute can’t be called ‘scientific facts’ and nearly always are opinions, and must be open to debate. This is a trick used for centuries to close down debate on controversial matters.

” It is not a well posed question to ask “Is it caused by global warming?” Or “Is it caused by natural variability?” Because it is always both. It is worth considering whether the odds of the particular event have changed sufficiently that one can make the alternative statement “It is unlikely that this event would have occurred without global warming.” For instance, this probably applies to the extremes that occurred in the summer of 2010: the floods in Pakistan, India, and China and the drought, heat waves and wild fires in Russia.”

Trenberth’s speech is a prime example of the disingenuos and misleading pronouncements of the climate establishment.The whole argument is based on the acceptance of the statement :
” that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report”
and the implication that this was true then and is still true today. What does the data show?
Because of the thermal inertia of the oceans and the lack of any UHI effect the best indicator of recent trends is the Hadley – CRU Sea Surface Temperature data. The 5 year moving average shows the warming trend peaked in 2003 and a simple regression analysis shows a global cooling trend since then . The data shows warming from 1900- 1940 ,cooling from 1940 – about 1975 and warming from 1975 – 2003. CO2 levels rose monotonically during this entire period. It is clear that the IPCC models have been wrongly framed. Humidity, and natural CO2 levels are solar feedback effects not prime drivers. Anthropogenic CO2 has some effect but our knowledge of the natural drivers is still so poor that we cannot even estimate what the anthropogenic CO2 contribution is. This is in fact what the science section ( as opposed to the political Summary for Policy Makers ) of the AR4 report says.
The IPCC science section AR4 WG1 section 8.6.4 deals with the reliability of the climate models .This IPCC science section on models itself concludes:

“Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”

What could be clearer. The IPCC itself says that we don’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- i.e. we don’t know what future temperatures will be and we can’t yet calculate the climate sensitivity to anthropogenic CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the “plausible” models to be tested anyway. Nevertheless this statement was ignored by the editors who produced the Summary. Here predictions of disaster were illegitimately given “with high confidence.” in complete contradiction to several sections of the WG1 science section where uncertainties and error bars were discussed.
Clearly the correct procedure should be to estimate the natural variability and then see what effect human activity has rather than vice versa.
Statistical analysis is not knowledge. All time series can be cherry picked ,and statistically manipulated to provide nice looking slides for illustrative purposes. They make convey no useful information unless the context and their construction procedures are known.
Since 2003 CO2 has risen and the global temperature trend is negative. This is obviously a short term on which to base predictions but in the context of declining solar activity – to the extent of a possible Dalton or Maunder minimum and the negative phase of the PDO and AO a global 20 – 30 year cooling spell is more likely than a warming trend.
Trenberth’s statement “Given that global warming is happening and is pervasive” is not a “given ” at all and is simply untrue.

“I’d like to ask Mr. Trenberth about what happened to all those hurricanes he told the public, back in 2005, that were supposed to be increasing (due to climate change) but that we haven’t seen? Where did they disappear to Mr. Trenberth? ”

“Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed…….”

He defines what he means by “null hypothesis” here:-

“Prior to the 2007 IPCC report, it was appropriate for the null hypothesis to be that “there is no human influence on climate” ”

He is therefore making the claim that IPCC AR4 said that human influenced climate change is unequivocal.

But it didn’t!

When the UN issued a first draft of the proceedings of the Cancun Conference they made the same incorrect claim, saying:-

3. Recognizes that warming of the climate system, as a consequence of human activity, is unequivocal, as assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change in its Fourth Assessment Report;

Perhaps surprisingly, no lesser person than the NYT’s Andrew Revkin pointed out the mistake to Pachouri – who apologised and had the wording changed.

Revkin noted:-

[Dec. 5, 10:35 a.m. | Updated Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chariman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has confirmed the small error in the draft described below. On Sunday morning, he told me he was contacting relevant officials about “the need for correcting the wording that the statement uses.”]

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level

Qualified by:-

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

So, as far as I can see, “Lord of All Creation” Tremberth is misrepresenting what IPCC AR4 said and owes the AMS and its members a big apology.

Don’t waste time communicating with Trenberth or the AMS. They stopped making sense long ago. Those of us in the USA should send a copy of his remarks to our appropriate House member with a note urging that Mr. Trenberth be invited to testify under oath before a House committee. He could explain how a public employee like himself holds such views and defend them in a setting where he could not equivocate. The new majority in the House is eager to find ways to stop wasteful spending. I can’t think of a better place to look than NCAR.

O.k I forced myself to read all of this dreck in detail and I can safely say after 35 years as a practicing scientist I’ve never heard anything so disingenuous from another scientist. Just to mislead, he starts off by saying global warming is “unequivocal”, which nobody disputes, but makes it clear throughout that what he means is that CO2-caused climate disaster is unequivocal.

He then goes on to call honest scientists names, falsely represents their positions, tries to explain away wrong doing, makes unsubstaniated claims about how the climategate e-mails were released, blames certain e-mail statements about peer review on a colleague, blames everyone else in sight because his vested interest is not roundly supported by the rest of humanity despite it’s lavish funding, makes wild-eyed claims about human population, an issue which he has clearly not given more than 5 seconds of thought and which he will only suceed in agravating, acusses the rest of us of being corrupted and then tries to promote himself as a moderate voice of reason.

I don’t have another second for this guy. He is the acme of unprofessional and I won’t waste 1 Hz of bandwidth e-mailing him any suggested improvement for his talk.

I would also like to point out that, in assessing corporate governance, one of the best practices is to note the culture of the top management. Many people blamed the culture Ken Lay and Jefferey Skilling created for the downfall of the company. If you have ever seen ‘The Smartest Guys in the Room’, you’ll remember the section titled ‘Ask Why, Asshole’. It involves a phone call where an investor asked why the cash flow and earnings statements never come out at the same time, and why they are the only company that can’t put them out together. Skilling calls him an asshole over the phone, and the floor traders made a sign with Enron’s logo and slogan on it ‘Ask Why’ but penciled in the word ‘Asshole’ because they thought it was great that the then CEO was calling an investor an asshole. He also starred in a corporate video shortly after they got mark to market accounting taunting the veracity of the standard by pretending they were going to use ‘Hypothetical Future Value’ accounting. Or in other words, just make the numbers up.

Now, I know there are many that do personally attack the scientists, but it isn’t as pervasive and personal as someone showing up at Anthony’s house (or was it place of business?). More often you will see the word denier thrown about by leaders and followers alike. The bunker mentality of these scientists is clearly on display in these emails and now in their public speeches, and there is no surprise that they continue to take the skepticism towards their work as personal attacks. What is the ‘tone at the top’ of the AGW science foundation? This is no small matter, either. Businesses across the country are evaluated on these things on the off chance that comparatively few investors lose money. Who are the investors (willing and unwilling) in AGW? Why do we not deserve the same level of accountability that is demanded of our publicly traded companies? Don’t we have the right to have figures that must be taken on trust, in which we all have enormous stake, audited by skeptical and independent (in fact and appearance) third parties?

I am not accusing them of fraud, I just think they are wrong. But when you have an extremely complicated mathematical process that involves a good deal of statistical sausage making to crank out a number that is supposed to be pretty easy to understand, I do get the Enron signal that more people should ‘Ask Why, Asshole’.

“Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.”

So even allowing for the nonsense that is: “Given that global warming is “unequivocal”,” by reversing an extreme Null Hypothesis he is seeking to force realists to prove a negative, which theoretically is impossible.

He should prove that mankind has been responsible for the earth’s unprecedented warming, and seeing that it has not been proven that the earth’s warming is unprecedented, then there is no way to prove that mankind is responsible for all, or even, most of it.

The Alarmists have still failed to prove it! They cannot prove it, so they are asking realists to prove a negative in response.

This is deeply dishonest and shows that the Alarmists cannot be trusted.

Well, I was really going to try and politely but firmly bring up some serious questions and points regarding the topics he wrote in an e-mail. I can’t. I’ve started 3 different times and each time I couldn’t contain my acrimonious bewilderment. It either comes across dripping with sarcasm with an underlying loathing, or blatant outrage. I could no more seriously engage this person on climate change issues than I could Nancy Pelosi if she were dressed in a Bozo the clown outfit. Maybe someone else can engage this person, but I’m going to have to be content with ridiculing and scorning.

When you look through the whole meeting program it is easy to understand why climate change goes on and on. The meterology profession seems to be dependent on the topic for research dollars. There are so many papers on the subject – not just the so-called effects of climate change but also communication. This paper is from the second session on Communicating Climate Change. I notice Vicky Pope and David Karoly are also presenting on the subject.
******

Some U.S. audits of federal “Climate-change” funds show that about 80% went to “media” and “communication” activities. A mere 20% went to everything else.

IOW, U.S. public tax money meant for “AGW research” is mostly spent on newly-created & existing, “bought” media corps, not for actual research.

We in the US must now be proud to have the best-paid & most extensive media-propaganda machine in the world, all backed by Science! Just ask Kevin Trenberth.

Ok, something screwy is happening with my computer. Could you rescue my post from wherever it may have ended up? I am off to reboot and see if that fixes whatever issues are going on here. Thanks mods, sorry about all the extra comments.

In the future, when the AGW nonsense is put to rest, this speech would make a very good learning experience for psychology students. It is filled with one projection after another. Probably the biggest is the use of “denier” which he realizes, at some level, is what he has been doing for years.

This is typical behavior for addicts and there is no doubt Trenberth is addicted to the acclaim that AGW has brought him.

“My own observation is that while some politicians are indeed well informed and understand their role, most are not. The corrupting influence of funding from all sources of vested interests prevents many of them from doing the right thing on behalf of the country and civilization as a whole.”

Beautiful. Just beautiful. With opponents like Dr. Trenberth, the skeptic/realist/denialist side just cannot lose the debate. Talk about dynamiting the heck out of the branch beneath one’s backside!

But, being a researcher myself, I cannot help but wonder – this person calls himself a scientist?! On what merit? OK, the panic in his ramblings is palpable. That alone speaks volumes. But the absence of a shred of logical thinking in his arguments is, for me, simply staggering. One example:

Trenberth writes:
“Prior to the 2007 IPCC report, it was appropriate for the null hypothesis to be that “there is no human influence on climate” and the task was to prove that there was. The burden of proof is high.”

Fair enough. Then he states:
“Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.”

One cannot help but wonder if Trenberth actually read what he wrote: in plain English, he admits to equating the fact of “unequivocal” global warming with proof that said global warming is anthropogenic. Well, he might be short on logical reasoning but his faith certainly makes up for the deficit.

So here’s hoping he gets his next research grant for the de-travestization of “global warming”. These clumsy verbal moves certainly do not bode well for his alternative career as a street illusionist.

Here is a simpe lesson on why no one should listen to the alarmist scientists.
In Australia state governments were confidently told that Australia’s climate would be more drought prone. State government invested in desalination plants. Over the past year Australia has seen massive amounts of rain. Now the desal plants are being mothballed after billions of dollars have been wasted.

Lesson two – the Met Office. They have constantly warned the public of milder than expected winter thus leaving councils unprepared until disaster strikes.

Governments should take great heed to the above examples as it is what awaits governments from around the world if they continue to listen to these pathetic people.

“An update is provided on the Earth’s global annual mean energy budget in the light of new observations and analyses. In 1997 Kiehl and Trenberth provided a review of past such estimates and performed a number of radiative computations to better establish the role of clouds and various greenhouse gases in the overall radiative energy flows, with top-of-atmosphere (TOA) values constrained by Earth Radiation Budget Experiment values from 1985 to 1989, when the TOA values were approximately in balance. The Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) measurements from March 2000 to May 2004 are used at TOA but adjusted to an estimated imbalance from the enhanced greenhouse effect of
0.9 W m-2.”

“Prior to the 2007 IPCC report, it was appropriate for the null hypothesis to be that “there is no human influence on climate” and the task was to prove that there was. ”

That is completely idiotic as a null hypothesis and it sounds like a typical straw man. Of course there is some influence. The problem is when you get activists in the name of science like Trenberth that think their mission in life is to spread the message of a doomsday cult.

He has no problem with stating that global warming is unequivocal:
“Given that global warming is unequivocal, the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming rather than the inane statements along the lines of “of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming”. That kind of comment is answering the wrong question.”

No Trenberth, the term “global warming” should not be not be used. Significant and harmful human caused warming should be used since that is what your doomsday cult implies all warming is. You, Trenberth, haven’t even come close to demonstrating that. Then it makes your arguments seem foolish rather than what you pretend is just a legitimate science suggesting the possibility of some human influence.

“Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence. Such a null hypothesis is trickier because one has to hypothesize something specific, such as “precipitation has increased by 5%” and then prove that it hasn’t. Because of large natural variability, the first approach results in an outcome suggesting that it is appropriate to conclude that there is no increase in precipitation by human influences, although the correct interpretation is that there is simply not enough evidence (not a long enough time series). However, the second approach also concludes that one cannot say there is not a 5% increase in precipitation. Given that global warming is happening and is pervasive, the first approach should no longer be used. As a whole the community is making too many type II errors.”

Given that the ENSO (amongst others) has such a large effect on all of our climate indicators in both hemispheres and until such time as it is possible to demonstrate that it is indeed somehow driven by changes in CO2 concentrations, this recomendation to change the null hypothesis is probably a little premature IMHO.

Rick Bradford says:
January 13, 2011 at 3:27 am
“His section on the media turned me right off anything else valuable he might have to say, with its complete cognitive dissonance and circular arguing.”

“The media have been complicit in this disinformation campaign of the deniers.”

Good point. Was watching the Weather Channel last night and listened to a “meteorologist” explain how Global Warming is causing all the cold weather and snow right now due to “unusual high pressure areas” and “arctic ice melt”. At this point he then used the term “Climate Change” rather than Glbal Warming. He cautioned viewers not to believe there was no AGW problem just because there is no warming.

So, there is disinformation out there but it is a matter of opinion as to the culprits. Of course the Weather Channel is now the grocery store check out counter newspaper of Weather reporting.

“The growing population and demands for higher standards of living mean that the planet is already over-populated, and far too many things are simply not sustainable in anything like their current form… Unfortunately, society is not ready to face up to these challenges and the needed changes in the way we create order and govern ourselves. Population issues are largely missing from the discussion, such as it is. Nonetheless, a number of pragmatic steps are possible, but they require planning for decades ahead, not simply the time until the next election.”

What pragmatic steps? Inquiring minds want to know. How can one possibly control world population without implementing a centralised global government? Is this the change in government Trenberth is referring to in the above quote?

It’s a very short slide from reproductive rights policy down to eugenics. How does the AMS respond to this?

As a Layman with some training in the Scientific Method, I am always appalled at
the decent into medieval church politics that this appears to be. What next the
Dunking Chair for Anthony? The Rack for Roy Spencer? The Iron Maiden for
Piers Corbyn? Guilty for being correct or pointing out the lack of Clothing on the
Profit(eeewww!)? Trenbreth is asking for the true believers to unite around a
dying cult…

Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. Moreover a debate actually gives alternative views credibility.
———————————————————————-
To quote an old joke, I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony. I know what I want to do, but I don’t know where to begin.

What on Earth is a ‘scientific fact’? I mean, the kind that is ‘not open to debate and opinion’? Even gravity is still properly referred to as ‘the theory of gravity’.

As for his second point, totalitarians throughout history, religious and political, would agree.

Well I have to be doubly embarrassed. Not only was I the beneficiary of what was in those days an absolutely superb New Zealand Education System; but I also have a colleague who is the spitting image of Kevin Trenberth. But this chap is a very fine mechanical engineer; besides being a very level headed, and non confrontational type; who would never resort to what Trenberth has put out, in this purely political piece of his.

I glanced through it casually; I’m not going to waste another minute reading it; or even a second trying to understand it.

That this is the fellow, who purportedly turned out the official earth energy budget map, casts it in an even more laughable light.

To construct an apparently linear equilibrium snapshot, of a highly non-linear, and never in equlibrium chaotic system; is NOT my idea of the presentation of scientific “facts”.

Maybe Alexander; we need to have the Southern Cross stars tattooed on our foreheads; to make clear to one and all, that we are products of the land that produced Kevin Trenberth.

Who along this continuum qualifies as a denier in his mind? Anyone who does not agree with the conclusions of the IPCC? Is Roger Pielke Sr, or Richard Lindzen, or Roy Spencer a denier? Or is he just referring non-scientists on the outer fringes?

The use of inflammatory language is not only beneath his dignity as a scientist but his failure to define the term is inexcusable (a “travesty” indeed).

As a layperson I used to believe the catastrophic predictions. I mean, all sorts of disaster happen, and change happens, so why not global warming…

But one day I heard the media / scientists say that anybody who disagrees with AGW must be a shill or crank and should be ignored. What?? How can science be self-correcting if you put blinkers on? Maybe AGW was right but I could no longer trust them to be objective. They say, “oh well you’d listen to someone who says the sun won’t rise tomorrow” — but why do they liken a future prediction about a complex system… to something every human has repeatedly observed daily for 50,000 years??

In short, their defensiveness is totally obvious. We are dealing with people who are very skilled, very smart, very influential and succesful, and who know that they have put themselves in a position where their teaching will be found unsound if examined too closely. So they bark at anyone who comes near.

They bark at the man in the street for being too stupid to understand the science, or too selfish to take action — but somehow, despite this predominance of stupidity and selfishness amongst most of the people, of politicians, CEOs, engineers, airline pilots, doctors, gardeners (David Bellamy) and conservationists, etc. these AGW scientists are themselves claiming to be collectively immune to personal selfishness or stupidity — they are curteous to each other but insult great swathes of the people as “deniers”. Their defensiveness is totally obvious. Consciously or unconsciously they know they are in trouble if people look too closely.

For all I know AGW might be true, but without objective open minded scientists we will never know.

( Just for the record I believe that the next great and necessary step for humankind will be a radical resynthesising and integration of planetary development, cultures, and environment, and things like “nationalism” will become as outdated and distasteful as the racist Apartheid system. But the current AGW game has blunderingly set that project back 50 to 100 years. )

…caveated statements show up poorly against loudly proclaimed confident statements that often have little or no basis

In Trenberth’ context, it is the so-called “deniers” who are making “loudly proclaimed confident statements.” Where has he been for the last 10 years? The fact is that there has been an insessant drumbeat of “loudly proclaimed confident statements” from people like him.

For example, his use of the Accumulated Cyclone Energy metric when that metric was high, but his silence when that metric is now low. This is Trenberth’s “real travesty.”

‘Scientific fact’ is not open to debate? Really? Evidently, this is a new corallary to the Phil Jones “why should I give you my data, when you are only going to try to find something wrong with my work” version of the ‘scientific method’. Peas in a pod, those two.

‘Global warming’ only goes one direction, and thus drives all events the same way?Really?

So, there are no negative feedbacks in climate systems? There are no local manifestations of any anthropogenic climate forcings that run counter to the average trend exhibited by the sum of all such local manifestations? Really?

It is only when ‘global warming’ and natural processes reinforce that extremes are reached and records are broken? Really? There is no manifestation of natural climate processes that could cause an extreme or break a record without the reinforcement of ‘global warming’? There is no manifestation of natural climate processes that could cause an extreme or break a record despite some effect of ‘global warming’ that operates in the opposite direction? Really? So, ‘global warming’ is not only ‘unequivocal’, it is dominant everywhere, all the time?

In what pal reviewed journal were those assertions declared ‘scientific facts’ and thus rendered unquestionable?

As a practicing scientist, it pains me to see religionists like Trenberth operating under our mantle. We have enough trouble with anti-science worldviews as is, without having to deal with them coming from someone putatively within our ranks.

In it, Trenberth proposes what he calls the New GEWEX (Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment), with this alleged objective:

”To measure and predict global and regional energy and water variations, trends, and extremes (such as heat waves, floods and droughts), through improved observations and modeling of land, atmosphere and their interactions; thereby providing the scientific underpinnings of climate services.

He proposes what he calls seven “imperatives” for the project:
Datasets: Foster development of climate data records of atmosphere, water, land, and energy-related quantities, including metadata and uncertainty estimates.
Analysis: Describe and analyze observed variations, trends and extremes (such as heat waves, floods and droughts) in water and energy-related quantities.
Processes: Develop approaches to improve process-level understanding of energy and water cycles in support of improved land and atmosphere models.
Modeling: Improve global and regional simulations and predictions of precipitation, clouds, and land hydrology, and thus the entire climate system, through accelerated development of models of the land and atmosphere.
Applications: Attribute causes of variability, trends and extremes, and determine the predictability of energy and water cycles on global and regional bases in collaboration with the wider WCRP community.
Technology transfer: Develop diagnostic tools and methods, new observations, models, data management, and other research products for multiple uses and transition to operational applications in partnership with climate and hydro-meteorological service providers.
Capacity building: Promote and foster capacity building through training of scientists and outreach to the user community.

As have some others above , I have to take issue with this statement : “Even if temperatures or sea surface temperatures are below normal , they are still higher that they would have been ….” . Define “normal”. This simply doesn’t make sense .

To be honest , I have issues with the entire speech , and at first considered it a long winded , misleading whine ( especially about the media ) , but now , I see it as a desperate rant from someone who is about to go off the rails . Unfortunately , the AMS will probably take him seriously .

This article by Trenberth is the best ‘evah’ insight into the man’s character and the way he thinks. It’s all I need to know about him, he says it all! Reminds me of Captain Queeg of ‘Cain Mutiny’ fame—- This quote might serve as an illustration:-

“Captain Queeg –Ahh, but the strawberries that’s… that’s where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with… geometric logic… that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and I’d have produced that key if they hadn’t of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officers…

Lt. Commander Philip Francis Queeg: Mr. Maryk, you may tell the crew for me that there are four ways of doing things aboard my ship: The right way, the wrong way, the Navy way, and my way. They do things my way, and we’ll get along.”

‘Scientists who cross the line to being advocates for courses of action are often perceived as pariahs by their colleagues because their science is potentially biased.’

How can he then later say,

‘Instead, we must recognize that while there is considerable merit in slowing the pace of climate change, and we should work to reduce emissions, it is also essential that much stronger steps be taken to plan for and adapt to the change that is surely coming.’

Biased he certainly is and we all know the couse of action he’s advocating!Eventually he will be a pariah to the scientific community, but unfortunately it’s going to take a few cold years and some real data that hasn’t been fudged by psuedo scientists to make that a reality. But it will happen.

Will the national climate service (that Trenberth proposes above) make available to the public its datasets, analysis, process, and modeling for the public to test, just as NOAA’s National Weather Service makes available all its data and models for weather prediction today?

Considering the social and economic changes expected to result from accepting global warming as true and the loss of freedom that comes with government laws and regulations being proposed to avoid the consequences it seems to me that critical review, and argument is essential. Trendberth rejects any questioning of global warming theory.

He expects the world to submit to his scientific facts on climate without question and states scientific facts are not open to debate. He calls such debate useless. He is a scientist promoting a discovery which he claims proves the world is about to be destroyed by the productivity of man. He proposes mankind must change direction to save itself from itself. And can only call those who oppose him deniers. His attitude toward debate and review is in opposition to what he claims to be, a scientist.

In view of the consequences he proposes it is mandatory all information he and his organization has that convinces them of their claim be made public for review.

Of course Global warming caused by increased co2 in the atmosphere has only one direction and if we could work out the other factors affecting the climate then we would know the effect of co2 and whether it is significant.Are we talking about science fact or science fiction.Can we prove that that co2 warms the Earth significantly or not?If it is a scientific fact then we should be able to prove it, not be told that we must disprove it.I think science just became a lot less complicated recently when politicians decided proof was no longer needed in science and that anyone who disagreed with their views should be labeled flat earth believers.

“Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. ”

I find this remarkable coming from Trenberth. In the same email in which he asserts that the missing heat is a “travesty” he concludes that the DATA MUST BE WRONG. I’ve remarked on this before. The fact is, his “travesty” assertion is vastly less interesting than that statement regarding the data. Then, to say this … wow!

As an side, given the repeated “adjustments” and “homogenization” that climate data are subjected to, the data consistently are becoming less physical with each adjustment over time and more of an opinion.

This “warming is unequivocal” statement that Trenberth and others make is so irritating. Granted, warming due to carbon dioxide is unequivocal, based on principles of physical chemistry. Is it significant, is the important question. It is also unequivocal that Lake Mead, Lake Sakakawea, etc. hold back water going to the ocean and thus lower sea-level. The degree is what’s in question. Please Trenberth, stop thumping the big drum and demonstrate that anything is of crisis proportion. Don’t make arguments that only demonstrate half of your thesis and then complain that those who point out your thesis is incomplete are deniers.

“While statements about climate change are cautious and all sorts of caveats are applied by scientists, or else they are criticized by colleagues, the same is not true for the deniers. Many scientists withdraw from the public arena into the Ivory Tower after being bruised in skirmishes with the public via the press.”

I wonder if Dr Trenberth can name some of these shrinking violets. The Hockey team can’t wait to get in front of a microphone even Phil Jones hugged the limelight.

The whole of Trenberth’s political diatribe is full of excremental special pleading and as a political treatise does not stand even the most cursory inspection. It is on a par with “I smoked but did not inhale” and “I did not have sex with that woman”

Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. Moreover a debate actually gives alternative views credibility.

This kind of self-confidence in your own way of thinking is just amazing. I have never heard or read such a statement from a prominent scientist like Mr. Trenberth. Gordon Manley, the original author of the Central England Temperature record wrote in 1974: Science has been said to proceed through a series of approximations of increasing precision.http://www.rmets.org/pdf/qj74manley.pdf It is ‘very likely’ that Manley’s ideas were completely disappeared from mainstream climate science. As we all know, scientific advancement cannot be achieved without continuous questioning, re-examining and debating. When real world based observations are starting to disagree with a certain theory, it is high time to adjust our views instead of saying ‘nothing to see here, move along’ or even worse: modifying the data in order to save a worshipped theory.

Apart from the religious talking points cited above, I would love to see the ‘unequivocal’ evidence for the hypothetical constant global relative humidity, which forms the base of the whole IPCC positive water vapor feedback concept. Yes, we have plenty of evidence for a general warming trend in the last 150-160 years, but I have enough reasons to be unconvinced about its anthropogenic origin.

Does anyone actually think that Trenberth’s proposal for a new GEWEX (Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment), would make progress toward its alleged objective?

”To measure and predict global and regional energy and water variations, trends, and extremes (such as heat waves, floods and droughts), through improved observations and modeling of land, atmosphere and their interactions; thereby providing the scientific underpinnings of climate services.

Isn’t there enough of what he proposes going on already?

“Datasets: Foster development of climate data records of atmosphere, water, land, and energy-related quantities, including metadata and uncertainty estimates.
Analysis: Describe and analyze observed variations, trends and extremes (such as heat waves, floods and droughts) in water and energy-related quantities.
Processes: Develop approaches to improve process-level understanding of energy and water cycles in support of improved land and atmosphere models.
Modeling: Improve global and regional simulations and predictions of precipitation, clouds, and land hydrology, and thus the entire climate system, through accelerated development of models of the land and atmosphere.
Applications: Attribute causes of variability, trends and extremes, and determine the predictability of energy and water cycles on global and regional bases in collaboration with the wider WCRP community.
Technology transfer: Develop diagnostic tools and methods, new observations, models, data management, and other research products for multiple uses and transition to operational applications in partnership with climate and hydro-meteorological service providers.
Capacity building: Promote and foster capacity building through training of scientists and outreach to the user community.”

Hmm…dedicated to “stretching-the-truth” and “tthrow-up-scary-scenarios” Schneider who in the 70s was scaring the world about slipping into an imminent anthropogenic ice age. This fellow has plumbed a couple of extreme null hypotheses of climate change. Probably somewhere in the 80s he talked about the travesty of no cooling. I fear he will be rehabilitated as a guru for predicting the misertable cold climate in the offing. You don’t suppose these guys are illustrating climate variability with their travesties?

Imagine what it must be like. A person is at the top of his game last year, and now things have changed. A once loyal media is now more likely to publicise adverse comment. Working relationships have noticeably cooled – the sense that colleagues are now keeping their distance, wary of close association. Trusted channels of communication can no longer be relied upon for privacy. Creeping doubt, with more questioning and testing of views which would been accepted on trust and authority just a few months earlier. Past analysis and reports could be picked open, as more recent data becomes availabe, and doesn’t neatly confirm previous assertions. There may even be nagging feelings of whispering and sniggering.

Wow, what a profoundly interesting look into the mind of an influential warmist. Fundamentally misunderstands the scientific method, lacks an ethical committment to the pursuit of truth, has no apparent interest in historical accuracy. A mind like that is capable of doing great harm.

Trenbert seemingly unequivocally dislodging himself from the scientist community to start the journey of previous like minded and become a wannabe cultist leader who, dare I say, will hence forth, just like his idols before him, make sure he only speak in front of a majority, of the infamous, crowd of already converted cultist and like minded wannabes.

Before the consequences creeps into the light of day, or filling up the digital mailbox, as they always tend to do, Trenberts trek up the mountain of madness, will, I’m sure, to him, seem like the grandest dandiest gloriously most spiritually uplifting trailblazing pathfinding bestest of holiest mission (ever deviced by a climatological self proclaimed wizard’s most triumphant of machinations.)

Oh, how happy the days will seem before D-day. A time to rejoice and bath in the light of imaginary glory. To experience a perfect time. A bliss. Enlightenment even. And to be chosen to once light to all who just will listen and believe. Even they can become one with me and the light of gaia.

Will the madness never end. Is there even an end in sight? Check back a week from d-day, for we normal putts usually call this type of pre-hangover wondrous endeavor for what it truly madly just is: a “prima fidelis” bender.

The whole point of the “redefinition” of peer literature was really this as we pointed out in the book.

1. That Jones responded with a process TRICK, rather than science. His response should have been, “let’s write a paper to counter McKittricks work”. That wasnt his response. His response was to threaten a process trick.

2. Jones and Trenberth TRIED a process trick. for the first two rounds of the drafting process the REFUSED to cite the paper.

3. When forced to consider the paper, they engaged in another process TRICK. they dismissed the conclusions of the paper by making arguments NOT SUPPORTED IN PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE.

until trenberth and jones defend the sentences they wrote dismissing Mckittricks work, they are guilty. full stop.

The problem of course can be fixed quite easily. The following paragraph of AR4 should be changed From:

“McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and De Laat and Maurellis (2006) attempted to demonstrate that geographical patterns of warming trends over land are strongly correlated with geographical patterns of industrial and socioeconomic development, implying that urbanisation and related land surface changes have caused much of the observed warming. However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit large-scale coherence. Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant. In addition, observed warming has been, and transient greenhouse-induced warming is expected to be, greater over land than over the oceans (Chapter 10), owing to the smaller thermal capacity of the land.”

To:

McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and De Laat and Maurellis (2006) demonstrated that geographical patterns of warming trends over land are strongly correlated with geographical patterns of industrial and socioeconomic development, implying that urbanisation and related land surface changes have caused up to 50% of the observed warming over land since 1979. However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit large-scale coherence. Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development may not have the level of statistical certainty those papers established . In addition, observed warming has been, and transient greenhouse-induced warming is expected to be, greater over land than over the oceans (Chapter 10), owing to the smaller thermal capacity of the land.”

As the paragraph stands Trenberth and Jones simply made stuff up. There is NO study showing that Ross’s work fails to be statistically significant after accounting for circulation effects ( in fact Ross has follow-on work showing this is not the case.

To be clear, I do not think that Ross’ work is without issues ( we’ve discussed some of them on CA) but I think that the summary given by Trenberth/Jones is just wrong . Yes they finally agreed to discuss the paper. But in their discussion they dismissed the findings on grounds that have NO BASIS in peer reviewed literature.

The wrong doing is pretty clear.

“However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit large-scale coherence. Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant.”

That is a mathematical statement. Trenbertha and Jones claim that the correlation ceases to be significant. trenberth….. SHOW THE CITATION WHERE THIS MATH IS DONE. he can’t. jones cant. they cant because they guessed at it and did not do the math.

Here is my wish. My wish is that all skeptics would please focus on this precise detail.

If you want to write to AMS or write to trenberth ask this simple question.

or Anthony, put this simple question up as a post, a challenge to believers in AGW

Dr. Trenberth, in AR4 you and Dr. Jones wrote :

“However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit large-scale coherence. Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant.”

can you please cite the paper or show the math you did to determine that the relation found in Mckittrick 2004 ceased to be statistically significant?

Focus on that detailed question. Don’t cloud the issue with anything else or they will slip their way out of it.

[Trenberth] uses the word “denier” six times in his address, one that will reach hundreds if not thousands of AMS members. I’m disappointed that the AMS embraces this language.

In contrast to the AMS “Board”, I would think that many AMS members out there at large should desperately want to get the AMS out of the Climate Science Tribe of CAGW “believers”, with their regressive verbiage and “science”, and back to doing Meteorology based upon the objectivity of the scientific method and principles; which I’m sure is much more personally and professionally satisfying for rational, ethical people; and in strong contrast to the alleged Totalitarian thought-control escape to a “saving the world” Utopia offered up by the deluding and delusional, “perception is reality”, Post Normal Scientists and the rest of their fellow Looting and Controllist evolutionary throw-backs and deviants

Otherwise, everyone in the AMS will probably also have to start getting used to listening to more of the same quality of Trenberthian propagandistic gibberish from people like Climate Science’s “Mini-me”, Greg Craven, just as they did at the AGU’s own recent Steven Schneider Climate Change Meeting

If you wait for the the time when the AMS Board and its Climate Science Shamens start “talking in tongues”, it will be too late!

“The growing population and demands for higher standards of living mean that the planet is already over-populated,” and “Population issues are largely missing from the discussion, such as it is. Nonetheless, a number of pragmatic steps are possible..”

Not only is his Null Hypothesis a pitiful excuse for science, but he continues to propagate a behavior more characteristic of a cult than a scientific debate. For example, all hypotheses should be subjected to an attempt to falsify. In the case of “climate change” that is pretty easy. If the sited “climate change triggered events”, such as floods, wildfires, droughts, heavy snows in the winter, etc. occured routinely before man put the “extra” CO2 in the atmosphere, then I would suggest that the hypothesis has been falsified – or nullified in this case – time for a new hypothesis.

Granted, the total abandonment of science with his new “null hypothesis” is ridiculous, but perhaps the most alarming statements of all involve his attitude towards people. Let me guess, he and his ilk will design the pragmatic steps to eliminate the over-population issue – afterall, if people emit CO2, then fewer people means less CO2 – and if CO2 is the root of all weather evil, then we must stop at nothing to overcome…

Sad to say that my hard earned money is being confiscated to support such nonsense.

” Decarbonizing the economy is very important for many reasons, not the least of which is climate change.”
Is this supposed to be the modern approach to writing in a reasonable, scientific manner, or is this author paraphrasing a politician’s opinion?
Utter drivel.

(I took the liberty of sending the following to Dr. Trenberth, since he obligingly included his e-mail address in his draft remarks)

Dr. Trenberth

I have seen numerous examples of much higher temperatures during the Holocene than present. A graph of Greenland ice cores leads to an obvious conclusion: during the past 10,000 years, roughly 9,100 of those years were warmer than the warmest year of the past century (which according to NASA was 1934 in North America).

Numerous studies of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are in disagreement with Mann’s Hockey Stick, which suffers from a large number of study errors and flaws.

It is obvious that we have had intermittent warming during the past two centuries. That is to be expected, given the end of the Little Ice Age in the early 1800’s. A graph of the Greenland ice cores showed that such warming was frequent and normal (not human driven) over the past 10,000 years. It also shows our present warming to be remarkably unremarkable.

I’m sure you know sea levels rose over 400 feet in just over 10,000 years, an average of about four feet per century. Our current rate of increase in sea levels of about six to eight inches per century is a natural continuation of melting since the Ice Age, the most recent but not the last glacial period.

During that period coral not only survived great fluctuations in temperature, but coral growth rates were easily up to the task of keeping up with the rapid rise of sea levels. Recent photographic studies of the Tuvalu Islands, supposedly endangered by global warming sea level increase, shows they have actually grown overall during the past fifty years.

And, Dr. Trenberth, this is all derived from peer-reviewed studies, unlike the IPCC’s assessment reports which contain much material which is not peer reviewed.

With so much arrayed against climate change being caused by human activity, and so little evidence for it being catastrophic (since it has been much warmer and colder in times past), I am surprised that you are not more open to debate.

In fact for the entire Holocene — the period over which, by some odd coincidence, humanity developed agriculture and civilization — the temperature has been higher than now, and the trend over the past 4000 years is a marked decline. From this perspective, it’s the LIA that was unusual, and the current warming trend simply represents a return to the mean. If it lasts.

While statements about climate change are cautious and all sorts of caveats are applied by scientists, or else they are criticized by colleagues, the same is not true for the deniers.

Many posters to WUWT have noted that the reverse is very true.

I do not blame Trenberth for his emotionalism about the subject, though. After all, we are talking about potential disaster and the well-being of billions of people and trillions of other organisms. I am VERY emotional about this issue myself. This difference is he has his “head in the clouds” literally–and also figuratively as he relies upon models without a track record of predictive success. In my high school physics class, they told me that successful prediction is the essence of science. I am a biologist, and have actually studied the effects of carbon dioxide and temperatures on living things. The FACTS there are 180 degrees opposed to Trenberth. Oh yes, I get very emotional indeed.

Regarding the text or your speech for January 26th:I have a few comments from my first reading.

“Phil Jones (not cc’d to me), he wrote: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!””
This goes to intent and state of mind. Just because the papers were eventually included, it does not mean that his intent was to not exclude them (and could not), indicating that he had/has an unscientific approach to others’ work. Unprofessional thinking. This is far from the only egregious thinking, attitude, or activities indicated by the e-mails

“Three investigations of the alleged scientific misconduct . . . established scientists depend on their credibility and have no motivation in purposely misleading the public and their colleagues.”
Not true. The three investigations by biased, predisposed-to-validate committees who did mostly cursory and incomplete investigations and then basically whitewashed the affair—I think one even mentioned that they were nice guys‚ that’s objective?

In fact, these scientists have every reason to mislead the public as they are funded by a politically motivated agenda to promote global warming and their income depends on forwarding this program. “You cannot trust a man whose income and the welfare of his family depends on his agreeing with his employer.” You have here a clear conflict of interest, and the tendency for this effect to corrupt scientific thinking is apparent in the e-mails.

There is no evidence that the “climategate” e-mails were hacked. The composition of the collection suggests quite strongly that they were assembled by an insider and either left to be downloaded (at a public-accessible site) by outsiders or purposely released. Stop pretending that these were stolen—it begs reality to think that a hacker could draw e-mail from so many sources, or sort from a huge e-mail storage base, such a selection of e-mail with such specific, related content—it would take too long.

“they are unlikely to make false claims that other colleagues can readily show to be incorrect”
Not true again. Firstly, you are essentially saying that skeptics make (all) false claims, and that, if they cannot be shown to be incorrect, then they still must be false. This is innuendo that begs the listener/reader to assume skeptics perforce make false claims. And you are saying that, just because you cannot show them untrue, they must be untrue anyhow. That’s so self-serving. But, that is what propaganda is all about. Pummel the public with a false story and faulty logic that looks believable on the surface and try to swamp out the real story. Public memory will eventually start to believe the false story.

“Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended. In a debate it is impossible to counter lies,”
Ah, but telling lies, half-truths, and faulty logic is the only way you (warmists) can win. However, without real science behind you, you perforce lose. Sorry. Life is tough. This is a patently ingenuous statement as, if your science is valid, you will win. Further more, you counter lies with real facts. Unfortunately, if your “facts” are of poor quality or your, other better facts will trump the junk facts.

“The media have been complicit in this disinformation campaign of the deniers.”
Oh, come on! The media has been so into supporting the global warming junk science that it has been hard for real science to see the light of day. This is a specious argument and simply pretends that you are the victim, when in fact the realists are the victims of disinformation campaigns against them—and we face a funding gap that is ridiculous; tens of billions for warmists and 10s of millions for skeptics (most them get nothing). Do not whine, it’s unbecoming

Remember the two hallmarks of losing an issue is to attack and impugn the character of the other and to claim the debate is over. You are close to that here.

To use the term “deniers” is to flag yourself the loser. Beyond that, one does not need a peer-reviewed publication to point out obvious flaws in published papers, opinions, and junk science put forth by the alarmists. Notice we do not have a denigrating term for scientists who are morally corrupt, feel free to adulterate data, and create junk science and false models to further a political agenda which is not designed to help the planet and specifically designed to hurt man while benefitting a few.

“While statements about climate change are cautious and all sorts of caveats are applied by scientists, or else they are criticized by colleagues, the same is not true for the deniers. ”
Okay, let’s talk about Dr. Hansen. He’s cautious? The claims of numerous catastrophes do not come from the skeptics, nor does the artificially warmed temperature data and failed predictions; they come from your camp. We (skeptics) are constantly pointing out that many warmist claims are overstated, exaggerated, or nonexistent. We also believe that many climate changes are better handled with adaptation and not Draconian policy changes, massive restructuring of the world’s society, economic destruction, or a new totalitarian world order/government. So, who is being cautious here?I would say the alarmists are rather rash and incautious.

Null hypotheses are difficult. You could legitimately say that every organism on the planet affects climate by its sheer presence. And it is also impossible to prove that any individual has no effect—you cannot prove a negative. BUT, although long-term global warming (from the Little Age) is unequivocal, a manmade influence has not been clearly shown at any level. It’s that simple. The computer models are worthless and should not even be mentioned—anywhere—they are a huge waste of resources.

The IPCC is political body masquerading as a scientific entity. It takes largely honest efforts by scientists to describe climate change, albeit heavily biased with the assumption that warming is ongoing, and then adulterates the summary to serve a political agenda. The integrity of most of these scientists is intact, but the product and the temperature data sets have been highjacked by a small number (yourself included, imho). The propensity and abundance of non-peer-reviewed, activist, and/or plainly incompetent sources in the latest IPCC report clearly shows that they cannot support their political position using real science—it has to be polluted with tainting opinions from nonscientific sources to give it the flavor they need. They literally hope that most people will not delve into an examination of the sources, under the assumption that the public is stupid.

“Given that global warming is happening and is pervasive, . . .”
You labor under the assumption that warming is a given and cooling not an option, ignoring the historical fact that global temperature goes up and down at the decadal level as well as longer periods. To blithely say that it is happening and pervasive is to ignore sites where warming over a hundred years is zero or actually cooling. So, “happening” and “pervasive” are both wrong!

“As an example of misguided legislation one can point to the subsidies for production of ethanol from corn in the United States which produces marginal gains in fuel without adequately accounting for the damage to soils and other environmental aspects, and effects on the food supply.”
Good on you for mentioning it, but you seriously underplay the evil nature, widespread harm, and critical flaws in this entire endeavor. The sooner the whole debacle is killed, the better.

“Decarbonizing the economy is very important for many reasons, not the least of which is climate change.”
Yes, the least of which is climate change, as you know very well that a trace gas cannot warm the atmosphere in the face of the water vapor-driven convectional cooling of the water cycle. The water vapor heat engine is a global negative forcing factor. There is no evidence to support the contention that CO2 does or will cause detectable warming, except in a real glass greenhouse where convection is suppressed. Actually, if CO2 did cause warming, it would serve to ramp up convectional processes and possibly lead to slight cooling.

The Russian developments describing that most oil and gas may actually derive from the Earth’s core supports the fact that we find these materials virtually everywhere that we drill deep enough and suggests that this is a huge and possibly renewable, in effect, resource. As CO2 is rather low at the moment, compared to historical levels and plant and animal needs and tolerances, higher CO2 would be a real boon for the planet and man. CO2 as plant food is one of the key limiting plant growth factors. And coral reefs love it. Acidification alarms are false and unfounded as an equilibrium cannot influence itself with its own products. More CO2 means more CaCO3 deposition.

Husbanding our resources is always good, but we also need to be realistic regarding the consequences. Copenhagen was not a failure as we missed a horrible agreement which was aimed to set up a one-world government/power structure which would be in control of the world’s economies and all of our lives and for no real, valid reason, except a political agenda of power-grabbing and wealth redistribution. The latter agenda itemis not designed to help but to make undeveloped countries into nanny nations, permanently stunting their development—this is evil dressed up as aid, claiming compenasation for non-existent climate change damages. (This is the same as giving someone morphine for their pain knowing full well that you do not care, and even intend, that they become irreversibly addicted.) So, the overall goal of the Copenhagen group was not climate mitigation, but a new world order that does not care a fig about climate. They admitted as much at the Cancun conference. Is that what you support with junk science?

The problem you have regarding the environment is that you have no proof that the climate is moving in any one direction or that it will continue in that direction (forever as alarmists seem to think). This year’s events in Russia and Pakistan devolve from jet stream blocking events which typically happen during periods when the climate is cooling. Not mentioning this and simply listing such weather events as part of global warming is to lie to the audience.

It would appear that your claim that warming affects/causes(?) everything essentially would include that it causes the lack of warming and cooling we have seen in the last 15 years. So, you are saying that warming causes cooling. WHat would it take for you to drop warming and admit that cooling might be a dominant trend or process, despite CO2 still rising (we all know about the lag time between cooling and CO2 decreases; it is also possible that our emissions will prevent the lagged decrease, but there is no evidence that this is or will be a bad thing).

You can continue to ignore natural ocean cycles and solar influences all you want, but it does not take a climate scientist to realize that warming and cooling periods happen—we could not be warming out of the LIttle Ice Age, if it had not cooled from the Medieval Warm Period—and that to assume, unilaterally and arbitrarily, that, just because CO2 is increasing, warming must persist. There is no evidence for this unfounded assumption, unless, of course, you ignore all other natural factors. To refuse to include all factors, you construct a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It’s clear why you focus on CO2. It is the only way to blame climate on man’s activities. Unfortunately, as it is not true, you find it very difficult to make a clear case and have to resort to extended innuendo, omissions, fuzzy-thinking, and half-truths.

“The growing population and demands for higher standards of living mean that the planet is already over-populated, and far too many things are simply not sustainable in anything like their current form. ”
Wrong and wrong. It simply does not follow that we are over-populated because we want a higher standard of living. You suggest that being beyond agrarian is sufficient and we should just stop there? This is a meaningless statement which cloudily suggests that there is some hidden connection; this is fuzzy pseudo-thinking.

And it is far too easy to say that many things are unsustainable and never have to show anything to support this. Not only are most things more sustainable than the average person might realize (sure we need to take care of usage, recycling, etc.), but we have yet to fail to replace anything that has come into short supply with a useful alternative. That’s the progress of science and technology in action. It works just fine and it will sustain us. To shout “That’s unsustainable!” is a cop-out and tantamount to quitting—the attitude of a loser who does not have a real grasp of the realities and real options we do have. Too many times the unsustainable label has been applied just because an individual decided so because they felt like, more than anything else. They want to create guilt and worry as the public tacitly assumes that the label is properly applied—most often, I believe, it is not.

It must be hard to have to come up with all of this convoluted material. I have to give you credit for creativity, but not for science. As a propaganda minister, you have a job. But, then again, you are undoubtedly paid enough to make you suitably productive. Good oh, on so much diatribe that is designed to claim that you operate at a disadvantage and are fighting an uphill battle. You are, but it’s the real world you fight as well as those of us who stand for morality, integrity, the real world, and real world decisions made with the planet and human welfare reasonably considered.

I am a member of the AMS. On reading Trenberth’s panflet i felt initially insulted, later amused and finally bored. In the end what concerns me more is the disconnection between the AMS board and its membership (likewise AGU and EGU) and I wonder what ordinary members can do to keep the AMS a meteorological society and not an organization for the promotion of dogmatic nonsense (whatever its political advantage)

He quite literally said that science is non-falsifiable. Literally, he is saying that the scientific method is no obsolete and the new method is to accept without question the dictates of hard left scientists. Fat chance, it’s time they learn that the government has zero obligation to give scientists anything. Fun to see them howl when the 2012 government cuts them off.

Below is a list of Trenberth’s journal articles in 2003 and 2004 and a link to all his publications over the last 15 years. Most can be read in full, as indicated. That far back, his errors should be obvious to all!

Viv Evans says on January 13, 2011 at 4:14 am:
“…but perhaps we should count ourselves lucky that we’re not ending up in GULAGs or psychiatric clinics …”
Don’t count your chicken Viv, – The “deniers” haven’t won the war …..yet. – And if Dr. Trenberth has his way —–

Okay. Please – one of you – boil this one down for me…for the sake of a ‘little s’ scientist and avid Learner of Truth:

ISN’T THIS GUY ASKING FOR THE ‘NULL’ TO BE CHANGED BECAUSE IT’S SO DARNED ‘TOUGH’ TO DEFEND…okay. I believe it’d be like saying: “Officer let me PROVE I didn’t beat my wife!” kinda thing, am I close here? Anthony ~ can YOU tell me if I’ve understood this correctly??? Any Moderators, …please?

Isn’t he asking that the standard be changed to become ‘Let me PROVE I didn’t beat my wife’?

While it’s true that a NOAA climate model that accurately predicts temperature and precipitations trends 5 or more years into the future could save us tens of trillions of dollars, it takes years or decades to test whether a climate model is really accurate.

Since we already risk trillions of dollars each year on predictions made by NOAA’s weather data and models, wouldn’t it be more useful for us at “Watts Up” to help NOAA improve their weather data and models instead?

Let’s ask NOAA to make available to all of us at “Watts Up” their hourly land- and ocean-based data and their continuous satellite data, as well as the continental and global climate models they use to process it. We could look them over, compare them to what’s actually happening around our own neighborhoods, and perhaps point out flaws or errors that they’ve overlooked.

And maybe they’ll give us access to their supercomputers to test out our ideas and see if we can’t do a better job.

A fresh set of eyes, like the kind were offering to Kevin Trenberth, would have a more immediate impact, if we used them to help the National Weather Service, than Trenberth’s proposed National Climate Service.

And then we could immediately test whether (weather?) we know what we’re talking about.

This is the first post on this site that I have been unable to read to the end in one sitting. Sheer revulsion at Trenberth’s “Through-the looking-glass” world view sent me reeling four or five times. There are so many things wrong with this speech I don’t even know where to start. There is something shocking, untrue, irrational, devious or demented in just about every sentence.

Something not stated specifically in the text, but may be inferred from it, is the significance of the refusal to debate. There are two ways of changing peoples behaviour: a.) convincing them through debate; or b.) through compulsion by force. Trenberth has discarded option a, option b will be attempted next.

Apparently, according to Trenbert, climate science equations only have one solution each, and the likes of, and including, Trenbert have decided the solutions ‘afor hand, and not knowing the answer to the equation is moot so long as you also merely believe in their single solution and that it might, possibly, could, if only, be correct.

What is climate science then other ‘an a socio-political pseudo science.

Place your right hand on the IPCC AR4 Report and repeat after me:-
I, Kevin Trenberth, do solomnly swear (by Mann & Hansen) that the evidence that i give will be, truncated, homgenized,manipulated, adjusted, cherry picket and subjected to analysis employing short scentring in order to produce confirmation of my preconceptions.
Thank you Mr Trenberth, please produce your evidence.
Err what now. That is so unusual because by asking me to actually produce evidence , you are impuning my integrity as a scientist. (under his breath) What is the world coming too, this is me Kevin Trenberth.

Trenberth’s re-interpretation of his “travesty” comment doesn’t get him off the hook just because he plays it down. The comment may have involved not being able to understand the earth energy imbalance (because the significant discrepancy between incoming and outgoing energy wasn’t showing up in temperature increase), but so what? Not understanding that process clearly implies that even the basic science is not yet understood.

The real travesty has been that the major news media, our basic check on political improprieties , has contributed significantly to the work of this alarmist cabal.

Below is a list of Trenberth’s journal articles in 1999 and 2000 and a link to all his publications over the last 15 years. Most can be read in full, as indicated. You’ve got to give him credit for persistence in trying to pull the wool (clouds?) over our eyes. But it looks like he slacked off in 2000.

Wasn’t it Stephen Schneider back in the 1970’s who was warning us about the impending Ice Age? Wasn’t it Dr. James “Thumbs On The Temperature Scale” Hansen back in 1980 writing computer programs predicting global cooling?

These “scientists” who spend their entire careers grazing at the bottomless trough of government grant money will investigate whichever way the global warming wind is blowing to keep from making an honest living. They should be ashamed of themselves.

“Yes, all events! Even if temperatures or sea surface temperatures are below normal, they are still higher than they would have been, and so too is the atmospheric water vapor amount and thus the moisture available for storms.”

Unfortunately sometimes civilization has to to use crude methods for crude people who refuse to stop their wrongdoing. He simply needs to be booed off of the stage at such of a speech, only then will some sanity return to science… to be put in his corner by his true peers (not speaking here of the hand picked friends called “peer reviewers”.

“The growing population and demands for higher standards of living mean that the planet is already over-populated, and far too many things are simply not sustainable in anything like their current form. The atmosphere is a global commons, shared by all. As we continue to exploit it and use it as a dumping ground, the outcome is the “tragedy of the commons” and we all lose. Unfortunately, society is not ready to face up to these challenges and the needed changes in the way we create order and govern ourselves. ”

That sounds like a statement from a hard-core left-winger.

If I were to translate it, I’d say it means the affluent will need to reduce their standard of living, that we will need to share the atmosphere (which means an equitable per-capita use of oil for all), and that we will need to change our political system to one of a very leftist nature.

I am positively gobsmacked after reading Trenberth’s speech. It was a little like suddenly finding oneself in the Twilight Zone, “somewhere between light and shadow, between science and superstition”. Some of the episodes were uplifting, if strange, others pretty creepy. The Trenberth Zone is just plain creepy.
Among his countless howlers was:
“The main societal motivation of climate scientists is to understand the dynamics of the climate system (both natural and human induced), and to communicate this understanding to the public and governments.”
Ah, if only. Sadly, Trenberth and his cohorts work in the Climate Change industry, and have but one goal in mind; that of keeping the fraudulent, self-serving Climate Change industry chugging along, oblivious to, and at odds with the truth and with science, much to their great shame.

It must have been quite a lark at first. Pushing something that was a conjecture at best and seeing a few politicians swallow the bait and take the matter further. The money followed, along with fame.
There was just that niggling little thought at the back of their minds that it was, after all, just a conjecture and not enough was known to really draw any firm conclusions let alone take action that would affect billions of people and cause them to spend their blood and treasure. By now though it was too late and halting the juggernaut would have been hazardous to their careers, wealth, fame and reputation.

Climategate must have been a visceral shock. That terrible sinking feeling, the loosening of the bowels, the panic.
So they descend into ever more bizarre statements trying to defend the indefensible.
By now the stress of maintaining the lie is beginning to tell and they slowly become unhinged. Maybe they even now have convinced themselves that that they believed in the lie all along.

Either that or they are evil psychopaths who will do anything to further their own agenda no matter how many other people are damaged in the process.

“As an example of misguided legislation one can point to the subsidies for production of ethanol from corn in the United States which produces marginal gains in fuel without adequately accounting for the damage to soils and other environmental aspects, and effects on the food supply.”

Here here. The rest is leftist, one-world government, “believe us because you aren’t smart enough to understand” elitism. I don’t think he understands “marginal gains” though since there is a negative return (energy-wise) on the production on ethanol.

How can this guy consider himself a scientist when he makes comments like the one on sea temperatures… so if the data doesn’t support his hypothesis, his hypothesis is still correct? He has fallen so far from the scientific method it’s embarrassing.

“My own observation is that while some politicians are indeed well informed and understand their role, most are not. The corrupting influence of funding from all sources of vested interests prevents many of them from doing the right thing on behalf of the country and civilization as a whole.”

Their role is not to be a conduit for the political advocacy of scientists.

There is another corrupting influence – the messiah complex. How many politicians could resist having an ‘expert’ first warn of impending tumultuous peril and then map a guaranteed route out of danger? The insistence that the issue is both urgent and can only be solved with massive political, social and economic upheaval aids in persuading people this must be done – experts wouldn’t possibly suggest it if it wasn’t necessary, would they?

These days it would seem the higher the position a politician achieves the less likely they can resist that temptation to lead us to salvation.

As occurs with Piers Corbyn’s messaging, there’s certainly a lot of hyperpartisan nonsense to filter out of Trenberth’s message here.

—
Selective commentary:

Dr. Trenberth wrote:

1) “The selective publication of some stolen emails taken out of context and distorted is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with the climate change issue in a responsible way.”

I agree with the latter part of the statement: “[…] cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with the climate change issue in a responsible way.”

2) “climate change deniers”

Trenberth made a mistake here. For example, even amongst the most virulent hyperpartisans around here, I can’t remember reading even a single comment suggesting that the climate doesn’t change. I have no objection to use of the word “denier” (for example, to clearly differentiate from sensible nonalarmists a category of maliciously unrestrained political hyperpartisans), but putting the specific words “climate change” in front of “denier” introduces an irresponsible disconnection with reality (if it isn’t just cheap politics).

3) “They [scientists] find it disturbing that blogs by uninformed members of the public are given equal weight with carefully researched information backed up with extensive observational facts and physical understanding. […] It continues to be frustrating at how difficult it is to find out just what has happened and the context from US government sources.”

Admission to being frustrated & disturbed is not a good sign. It suggests emotional instability triggered by challenges with comprehension of complex natural phenomena (including social dynamics) where objective tenacity would be more adaptive (particularly for anyone in a leadership role).

4) “type I […] type II errors”

See point 5 below.

5) “Scientists make mistakes and often make assumptions that limit the validity of their results.”

The latter part of the statement is key: “[…] often make assumptions that limit the validity of their results.”

6) “It is not a well posed question to ask “Is it caused by global warming?” Or “Is it caused by natural variability?” Because it is always both.”

Note that Trenberth does not qualify “global warming” with “anthropogenic”. I want to suggest that terms like “global warming” & “skeptic” need to be clearly qualified as a courtesy to more sensible audience members who will sincerely appreciate efforts to eliminate irresponsible ambiguity in this important discussion.
—

Those who read Trenberth’s cutting edge papers on natural climate variations know that, as happens with Corbyn, stimulating scientists sometimes go off the rails with hyperpartisan climate politics (which sensible people filter out of messaging, retaining only substantive bits).

Sensible nonalarmists are alarmed by neither global warming nor global cooling (for example towards a supposedly imminent ice age which some predict). Being prepared for whatever nature might bring is prudent, but being alarmed isn’t sensible.

Paul Vaughan says @ January 13, 2011 at 7:05 pm:
3) “They [scientists] find it disturbing that blogs by uninformed members of the public are given equal weight with carefully researched information backed up with extensive observational facts and physical understanding. […] It continues to be frustrating at how difficult it is to find out just what has happened and the context from US government sources.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Isn’t amusing that after stating that the IPCC peer-review is 100 times more rigorous than the normal journal peer-review process, as he states:

“…which is a hundred times more rigorous than that for any individual paper…”

that we find things like Glaciergate? There are so many points like this where he contradicts his own position that the speech is laughable. Only the CAGW faithful could possibly lap this stuff up without question. And he has the temerity to assert that the media should pay less attention to blog sites… but it is perfectly OK for the IPCC to use unreviewed references from advocate NGOs.

IMHO, if Trenberth had ANY sense, he would just shut up! He is obviously desperate, just like the rest of the “Team.” He is embarassing his friends in climate science and all other climate scientists (and probablyALL scientists), and he is making all of the “discipline” more of a laughing stock among real scientists. Every time he speaks. It’s time for the “has-beens” in climate science to admit that they have lost the fight. It is getting really funny. Good grief, already!

To be clear, I do not think that Ross’ work is without issues ( we’ve discussed some of them on CA) but I think that the summary given by Trenberth/Jones is just wrong . Yes they finally agreed to discuss the paper. But in their discussion they dismissed the findings on grounds that have NO BASIS in peer reviewed literature.

Excellent, excellent post, thank you Stephen. Yes indeed there are issues with my modeling work. I’ve been pushed to address many of them by critics, and no doubt there will be more to arise with new work on this topic.

I hope people realize what is at stake. The integrity of the land-based surface temperature data is essential to the IPCC conclusions regarding the rate of warming and the attribution to GHG’s. If the data are contaminated then such findings suddenly become a lot more tentative than the IPCC evidently wants to be able to claim. If the IPCC was really interested in producing solid science they would devote a whole chapter to a thorough top-to-bottom quality check of their most basic data, taking their lumps as necessary. Instead they simply wave away the issue in a few places, and in the one place they elaborate (a little) they lie about the evidence. The claims that Oxburgh or the UK Select Committee or the Muir Russell Inquiry exonerated anyone on this matter are false — these investigations sidestepped the issue or changed the topic.

Write Trenberth if you like, but of more use would be to write Rep. Sensenbrenner, Rep. Hall or anyone else in a position to put Trenberth under oath and ask him whether he had any evidence to substantiate what he wrote. I would also like to know why Jones felt so confident about invoking Trenberth’s name in his scheme to keep all mention of the papers out of the AR4. Had they corresponded or spoken about this previously?

Sarah says
————
I may be far off the mark here and slightly off topic but once again I see climategate referred to as a hacking incident with the emails illegally taken off the servers.
————
Since the realclimate servers were apparently hacked so as to deposit the emails there, I think it is reasonable to conclude that actual external hackers were involved.

And climate skeptics immediately tried to spin this as being due to some heroic whistle blower, to prevent damage to their own position. If it was a wb I would expect the police investigation to have produced a result by now.

Garry says:
January 13, 2011 at 3:50 am
I am gobsmacked that activist Gaian cultists such as Trenberth and Hansen remain on the
———-
Good grief! I thought climate skeptics were the Gaian cultists. An unshakable faith that the conditions on the planet will not change irrespective of how much waste is dumped into the atmosphere sounds very very Gaian.

And sponging off communal resources like the atmosphere without paying seems very very left wing to me.

This post must be a first for WUWT. 236 responses and NOT one in defence of Trenberth! To include “Thoughts on Climategate” in the title of his paper and then to reference only two of the emails, those that referred to him, seems pretty self serving.

————–
Ahh the good old stalking and harassment tactic much favoured by climate skeptics.

I call it thuggery. Red Nek would you like to add your professional email address to the end of that message so that any abusive email messages can be cc’d or forwarded to you. [SNIP ~dbs] Or don’t you have the guts?

The change in the atmosphere of one-hundreth of one percent is not even measurable. And it is not “waste,” it is beneficial plant fertilizer. Sorry you’re ignorant of the difference.

As a direct result of increased CO2, agricultural production is rising significantly, thus keeping a lid on rising food prices, which especially benefits the billion people who subsist on less than $1 a day. Not that you give a damn about them.

Your canard about “sponging off communal resources like the atmosphere” is the same thing as accusing charities of “sponging” off the economy in order to help the less fortunate.

Obviously you are a product of the dysfunctional government education industry. Sad for you. And for the rest of us.

Good grief! I thought climate skeptics were the Gaian cultists. An unshakable faith that the conditions on the planet will not change irrespective of how much waste is dumped into the atmosphere sounds very very Gaian.

And sponging off communal resources like the atmosphere without paying seems very very left wing to me.

The faith belongs to the people who believe the alternative hypothesis without falsifying the null. In this case, you. Pointing out that you haven’t excluded the null isn’t faith, it’s fact. You can huff and puff until blue in the face but the fact is that the null still stands. Unless, of course, Trenberth can pull that formula out of his keester and show what the temperatures would have been without the additional CO2. But he’ll have to keep a running count, because I won’t be holding my breath.

Chris Wright says
——
The history of science is basically the story of how one scientific ‘fact’ after another turned out to be completely wrong.
——
No it’s not. Very rarely has it been a case of “completely” wrong.

The use of evidence tends to place a lot constraints on how wrong a scientific theory can be. E.g. Relativity is a generalization of Newtonian dynamics, so Newton was “wrong” in some weak sense, but he was right enough that Newtonian dynamics is still used to place a rover on Mars to a few meters accuracy.

Jumbo says
———
Over a decade of flat temps does nothing to prick their curiosity about the validity of AGW. Add 10 years of cooling and they still won’t budge.
——–
so what is your favorite temperature data set Jimbo? The ones I have seen all show warming.

The CRU data set was flat for a while if memory serves, but weren’t climate skeptics trying to fly the idea that the CRU data set was fake? Except when it showed cooling.

Which would mean that Phil Jones was simultaneously faking the data to prove global warming and faking the data to prove global cooling. All very confusing really.

As someone noted, “unequivocal” doesn’t mean what he (and the IPCC) think it means. It applies to communications or communicators, not to propositions or data. And it basically means “clearly expressed”.
For the opposite, see below*:
So the statement, “Given that global warming is unequivocal …” is nonsense. He and the IPCC are trying to fudge the word they really mean, “unquestionable”. But that would be too overt.

*The Bard on equivocation:
—PORTER:
…
Faith, here’s an equivocator that could swear in both the
scales against either scale, who committed treason enough
for God’s sake, yet could not equivocate to heaven. O,
come in, equivocator.
…
MACDUFF:
What three things does drink especially instigate?
PORTER:
Marry, sir, nose-painting, sleep, and urine.
Lechery, sir, it provokes and unprovokes: it provokes the
desire, but it takes away the performance. Therefore much
drink may be said to be an equivocator with lechery: it
makes him, and it mars him; it sets him on and it takes
him off; it persuades him and disheartens him; makes him
stand to and not stand to; in conclusion, equivocates him in
a sleep, and giving him the lie, leaves him.
;)

How can this guy consider himself a scientist when he makes comments like the one on sea temperatures… so if the data doesn’t support his hypothesis, his hypothesis is still correct? He has fallen so far from the scientific method it’s embarrassing.

Embarrassment for global warmers? Nothing that a little whitewash can’t take care of.

I will repeat my request to WUWT readers. Please read this carefully and with an open mind. Since the publication of Ar4 steve McIntyre and Ross ( and the readers of CA) have known about the issue with the paragraph Jones/Trenbert wrote. We knew this BEFORE climategate. But this instance of rewriting the science has been lost in the noise of other issues, some of them spurious. When you write to Sensenbrenner, please keep this in mind. If we all speak with one voice, if we all raise the same issue, there is a chance we get it addressed. It is a real issue. The documentation is solid. It’s the BEST CASE you have.
If you keep your complaint to that one single issue, they cannot ignore it as easily. if you raise 16 other issues, rest assured the system will find a way to ignore the important issue. We saw that happen with climategate.

The case Ross has is made stronger by the existence of the climategate mails, because there is evidence that the ill treatment Ross’ work received was premeditated. They wanted to keep it out of AR4. they were force to consider it, and when they considered it, they dismissed it with no cited science to back up their claims. It’s really open and shut, unless Trenberth/Jones can cite a source for their claim.

So focus. They premeditated treating Ross’ paper differently than others. The record shows they did. They need to explain THAT.

With Ross’ follow up paper You should expect this to be a battleground for Ar5 as well. It’s a key issue where better science is needed and Ross has a view of things that cannot be brushed off in a perfunctory manner. One way to insure that UHI will get a second look is to press for a resolution of Ross’ claim.

Here is his reply to my query and observation below. I am not a scientist so did not like to comment on other areas.

To: Helen Armstrong
Subject: Re: Your address to AMS

Because science is evidence and physically based, it is based on facts, and one who says otherwise is a denier. The events in Queensland are indeed a portent for the futures and a sign of global warming. Since you live in the neighborhood, you perhaps should take note.
Kevin Trenberth

An observation re the media. Please, have you ever seen the media do a good news story, except at the end of a bulletin to make people feel better? Of course the media run ‘the end of the world is here’ stories – case in point re the Queensland floods here in Australia. Link here

That is a shocking reply and I wonder what physical facts he’s talking about? Surely something else other than those generated in computer models? Also, if he is stating that the 2010 Queensland floods are proof of AGW, as a direct result of emissions of CO2 by humans, and worse is still to come, then there must have been more AGW in 1840, 1890 and 1910.

I see Lazy Twonks hanging around here trolling as usual, all hot air no substance, i’d ignore the troll he’s just trying to get a rise out of people. Leave him to it its not his fault the cult has managed to brain wash our Lazy Teenagers by teaching CAGW in our schools. Image after 10 years of being taught CAGW you find out the truth, it must be a shock to the system. All you can do is wait for they to leave adolescence and become an adult.

I se I was censored on my comment on calling person that denies climate change on a non-scientific ground for deniers. Du you have a suggestion on how to adress the group that spread false information supporing their denial of climate change?

[Reply: Scientific skeptics is an acceptable term for those you disagree with. ~dbs, mod.]

Regarding says:
January 13, 2011 at 9:46 pm
Jumbo says
———
Over a decade of flat temps does nothing to prick their curiosity about the validity of AGW. Add 10 years of cooling and they still won’t budge.
——–
so what is your favorite temperature data set Jimbo? The ones I have seen all show warming.

Lazy, he is showing a decade, actually 12 years of flat temperature, yes the top of a curve is higher then the preceeding part, so the trend is up from before the decade, but warming stopped in 1998. This was not predicted by the CAGW advocates.

“Note that the RSS AMSU and UAH AMSU satellite records showed that 2010 was somewhat cooler than 1998 while all the surface records claimed a statistical tie – in the case of GISS, it was a tie with 2005 which is GISS’ warmest year on record. That’s despite the fact that 2010 and 1998 were very similar when it came to the dynamics of the ENSO index throughout the year”

Now, do not be a LAZY teenager, read the post and understand the significance of comparing both ENSO indexs BEFORE responding. REALLY, prove to yourself you can be objective and to many here you are not a troll. Read it and as a thought experiment take the skeptic side and understand the veracity of each point made.

Kevin Trenberth’s talk seems to be a combination of whinging, self-contradiction and hedging to mitigate any future blame for world upheaval in AGW’s name.
It leaves an impression of slight panic that would seem to reinforce the realisation that the CO2- AGW proponents may have been wrong —-the meaning that was
taken by most people from his email statement—–
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
He focuses on the claim that the emails were hacked or stolen, but doesn’t for one minute call for an investigation into that.
He wants a deliberate and explicit boast by Phil Jones , that he [ Jones] and Trenberth are prepared to, and determined to, manipulate the peer-review system to make sure alternative views are not published—— to be seen as just naivety and lack of understanding on Jones’ part.
The real naivety is in his expectation that the world would believe his explanation.
He pleads for three demonstrable whitewashes to be seen as inquiries that provided legitimate vindications of the actions of his colleagues and himself.
He tries to convince his audience that the media is in the tank with the sceptics, when anyone following the issue can see that the diametric opposite is the truth in the US, the UK and most certainly in Australia, where the MSM doesn’t even bother to make a feeble attempt at balance.
‘Amplify the view that there are two sides’ is exactly what the media don’t do.
He whinges that climate scientists can’t win debates with sceptics—but does want debate about policy that takes the certainty of CO2-induced AGW as its premise.
He obsesses that politicians won’t toe their CO2-induced AGW line.
He implies that events that do have [ pre-fossil fuel] precedents in history [ documented in varieties of ways], should now be deemed unlikely to have happened without CO2-induced global warming.
He says global warming is ‘unequivocal’, but then goes on to equivocate, wanting sceptics to accept the burden of proof, and saying that any cooling should actually be accepted as warming, because tempaeratures are ‘still higher than they would have been’—with no explanation about his evidence for that.
He advocates promoting the policies of a carbon price, carbon taxes, offsets and a cap and trade scheme to the public—-says ‘decarbonising the economy is very important’—- but in the next breath says those policies are short-sighted.
He raises over-population, but offers no suggestions for solutions.
The hedging and cover seems to be in his almost complete avoidance of linking CO2 with the ‘global warming’, ‘human influence’[ knowing ‘human influence’ covers land use changes, deforestation, burning of wood etc—many things that humans did before industrialisation and CO2]
It’s also in his talk of instead ‘slowing the pace of climate change’ and ‘work to reduce emissions’, and ‘plan for and adapt to the change’, and ‘we should be more accepting that climate disasters are inevitable’——–which doesn’t exactly fit with the very alarmist nature of his colleagues’ pronouncements, and some of his own .
It’s almost as if Trenberth knows that the whole house of cards is shaky—maybe about to collapse—-and he doesn’t want to be blamed for the fall of realist governments that call for all sides to be heard—-for livelihoods lost—-for industries decimated—-for energy shortages and disruptions that may cost lives—-for destruction of economies—for more third world poverty and for unprecedented and irreversible global political and economic upheaval.

ValoSnah says:
January 14, 2011 at 3:34 am
I se I was censored on my comment on calling person that denies climate change on a non-scientific ground for deniers. Du you have a suggestion on how to adress the group that spread false information supporing their denial of climate change?

If you can prove they knowingly spread false information, you can call them liars. But you have to prove that #1 – the information is false, and #2 – they knew it to be false.

However not having done either, why do you want to denigrate the opposition that you merely disagree with? Would it not be better to engage and debate the information you feel is incorrect pointing out the errors and offering corrections?

Merely labeling those you do not agree with using a derogatory label indicates not only laziness on your part, but an insecurity in your own position.

Wonderful stuff! Many commentators have pointed out the unscientific self-delusion that has completely gripped Trenberth, and there is nothing for me to add.

However, I see this in its historical context. What a rich primary source he has created for future historians, researching into the the causes of the great AGW madness that gripped the world: you could write a classic reference book of every cognitive bias known to man, interwoven into a rich tapestry of religious-like zealotry and self-delusions.

“Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null
hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence. ”
That is logically incorrect. Only when there is solid and widely accepted evidence that the “unequivocal” global warming is “unequivocally” largely produced by human influence should the null hypothesis be changed. And *that* evidence, Prof. Trenberth, is what we’re all still waiting to see, rather than the minimal effects of our footling (claimed) addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere. The “unequivocal” warming is … just warming, and not many, even among “deniers” like me, deny it.
But then, it’s so much easier to set up the ol’ straw man that all “deniers” deny everything, then make a noise about knocking it down. Religious dogma never was strong on nuance.

steven mosher says: January 13, 2011 at 12:06 pm
…The following paragraph of AR4 [by Jones and Trenberth] should be changed from:

McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and De Laat and Maurellis (2006) attempted to demonstrate that geographical patterns of warming trends over land are strongly correlated with geographical patterns of industrial and socioeconomic development, implying that urbanisation and related land surface changes have caused much of the observed warming. However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit large-scale coherence. Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant.

to:

McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and De Laat and Maurellis (2006) demonstrated that geographical patterns of warming trends over land are strongly correlated with geographical patterns of industrial and socioeconomic development, implying that urbanisation and related land surface changes have caused up to 50% of the observed warming over land since 1979. However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit large-scale coherence. Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development may not have the level of statistical certainty those papers established.”

…I hope people realize what is at stake. The integrity of the land-based surface temperature data is essential to the IPCC conclusions…

Write Trenberth if you like, but of more use would be to write Rep. Sensenbrenner, Rep. Hall or anyone else in a position to put Trenberth under oath and ask him whether he had any evidence to substantiate what he wrote.

As if Trenberth hadn’t given his skeptics enough, he’s on the roll with lots more quotable quotes, opening the path for interesting adaptations and interesting ways of putting two of his statements side by side. True quotes are in italics.

“We can’t account for the lack of hurricanes I prophesied in 2005 and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Trenberth’s real travesty His stance drove the real hurricane expert Chris Landsea out of the IPCC.

“We can’t account for any trustworthy science at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

“We can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t… Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence. “

“Debating [‘deniers’] about the science is not an approach that is recommended. In a debate it is impossible to counter lies… Scientific facts are not open to debate. Moreover a debate actually gives alternative views credibility… [But scientists] regularly [debate]with colleagues who arrive at different conclusions. These debates follow the normal procedure of scientific inquiry.”

Helen Armstrong says: (January 13, 2011 at 11:34 pm) I wrote to Dr Trenberth. Here is his reply:

“Because science is evidence and physically based, it is based on facts, and one who says otherwise is a denier. The events in Queensland are indeed a portent for the futures and a sign of global warming.”

Regarding facts, check Steve Mosher and Ross McKitrick above, re Trenberth’s “travesty” of factual reporting in AR4 so as to eliminate McKitrick’s UHI paper challenge. As McKittrick says, this is an essential issue. And IMHO this correction is a job that needs doing, by us / whoever. It certainly makes nonsense of Trenberth’s claim re facts.

The link you provided routes to yet another article bogged down in politics. I was unable to learn anything about natural climate variations by reading it.

There are very few people capable of figuring out natural climate variations (e.g. Corbyn & Trenberth). Tying them up at committee with distracting politics puts a thick bottleneck, if not a cork, on vital progress.

Burying more needles of truth in haystacks of BS is not the way to help streamlined efficiency take enduring root in the field of natural climate variations research. Patience & tenacity, rather than automatic dismissal of needles of truth with loads of hay, will see us through to more fertile days.

He says “The growing population and demands for higher standards of living mean the planet is already overpopulated” and “population issues are largely missing from the discussion”.
————————–
Thank you, I missed that bit. Now the picture becomes full and I am fully sickened.

They really don’t like us ordinary, little, common people, do they? Be much better if we simply weren’t there. Fit in much better with their idealised, perfect future.

A fitting tribute to Stephen Schneider . It’s the parallels between Schneider’s

“it is journalistically irresponsible to present both sides as though it were a question of balance. … I don’t set very much store by looking at the direct evidence. … To avert the risk we need to get some broad-based support, to capture public imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make some simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. …

and Vladimir Lenin’s

We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth. We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, scorn, and the like, towards those who disagree with us.

Which prompts my use of the label eco-leninist .

This is a death-rattle .

I challenge Trenberth to show me the handful of equations demonstrating he even knows how to compute the temperature of a radiantly heated colored ball .

Anthony, do you think this guy got his scientific training from that great documentary film Plan 9 From Outer Space? In the conclusive summing up by psychic Criswell:

“Based on sworn testimony – can you prove it didn’t happen? – God help us in the future … ”

Apart from the last bit which of course violates the separation of church and state, thereby threatening the end of civilisation as we know it – the logic of this summing up is uncannily similar to Trenberth.

I don’t know why he bothers. Already his alarmism can be effortlessly converted to the null hypothesis – just use the precautionary principle for CAGW while making zero use of it for the risk of putting a lot of ordinary people out of work for a hypothesis which in fact is not settled.

Trenberth’s paragraph about reversing the Null Hypothesis there is no human influence [ on mean global temperature ] is literally too illlogical to try to make sense of . But even that original null hypothesis is untestably broad .

The most commonly asserted quantitative null hypothesis is itself not proper and has is a continuing source of massive confusion . It’s the impossible assumption that despite reflecting about 3o% of incoming sunlight , the earth’s spectrum is such that it radiates 100% of the energy it does absorb . This is the source of the assertion that without “greenhouse gases” the earth would be about 255k , 33c colder than measured .

But that’s a choice of a particular , very biased , in fact impossible , spectrum . A neutral and mathematically tractable null would be that our temperature would be about that of a gray ( flat spectrum ) ball in our orbit , about 279k , and invariant with respect to reflectivity . That leaves about 10c “greenhouse” spectral effect as a pure orthogonal variable to be explained .

The bias of this ubiquitous null is why a 20c or so “greenhouse” effect has been found on the moon .

I’d like to ask Mr. Trenberth about what happened to all those hurricanes he told the public, back in 2005, that were supposed to be increasing (due to climate change) but that we haven’t seen? Where did they disappear to Mr. Trenberth? His statements lead to the resignation of someone who actually knew something about hurricanes, Dr. Christopher Landsea, from the IPCC. Landsea saw no correlation and resigned in disgust.

There is considerable evidence that in this particular matter, poor Dr. Trenberth has recently been found to be either misleading his colleagues (who failed to conduct any due diligence) or is suffering a bout of what perhaps is best described as “false memory syndrome”.

While reading the good doctor’s proposed speech I kept having a mental image run through my mind at his comments..

Where to begin…

” Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. Moreover a debate actually gives alternative views credibility.”

Thankfully someone raised and debated an alternate view to the Earth being flat, or that the Sun and stars revolve around the Earth, or that trains could do no more than 13mph lest the air be sucked out and all passengers suffocated, etc etc.. who knows what kind of a world we would live in if those theories had not been challenged (and thusly debated by skeptics at the time) with the facts.

As for his assertion that “global warming is “unequivocal”” based on a single (biased and discredited) IPCC report is astounding. Truly an example of ‘The Princess Bride Syndrome’ (ie: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means”). If it was truly “unequivocal” then there would be no need for the term “deniers”, since there would be none who questioned (denied) the accuracy of the theory. Since people are indeed skeptical (and for good reason given the FACTS), then obviously it cannot be “unequivocal”.

Once again, the good doctor needs to provide irrefutable proof that rising CO2 levels are responsible for the Earth warming, and that those increased CO2 levels are due to human intervention. Since there is already evidence (Proof, or facts) that CO2 levels were higher in the past (pre-Industrial Revolution and modern human civilization) and that global temperatures were actually COOLER than present the burden of proof is on him and his followers, not on the skeptics.

To assert that the null assumption should now be discarded due to AGW being “uneqivocal” (already proven to be false in itself) is to suggest that in future legal matters where a person is accused of a crime (theory) that they must prove their innocence, rather than the accusers proving the truth (guilt) of the charge (theory).

As regards the comments by poster “LazyTeenager” I can only surmise one thing: He/She has decided to completely swallow the AGW theory and not research any alternatives…. thus proving that their ‘nom-de-plume’ is very apt.

It is simply preposterous that any highly educated person (an assumption) would say that the null hypothesis should be changed to say essentially that “we are causing a problem,” thereby forcing the “science” to prove a negative, which every educated person knows is logically impossible. And, therefore, totally anti-scientific! I think any climate scientists who have some integrity should object to this version of “climate science!” Otherwise, they are tacitly supporting a real breach of logic and an eventual destruction of their discipline. Silence is not golden in this case!

What’s really telling is that people would fight against making those simple changes I suggest. That tells me they care more about keeping Ross out than about a fair rendering of the record of published science.

Trenberth: “It is important that climate scientists learn how to counter the distracting strategies of deniers. Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended.” I have noticed that too. Not one of them has had anything to say about my work, especially Trenberth himself who should be very familiar with it. They simply think that debating with deniers dignifies their work undeservedly. Plus, they need to keep the acolytes ignorant lest they start to think that there is another side to the CAGW story that they don’t know about. Here is an example: when Michael Shermer of Skeptic magazine tried to get someone to debate Bjørn Lomborg about his movie “Cool It” everyone in the alarmist camp he asked refused to have anything to do with it. Head and neck firmly in the sand I call it.

David says
——
Lazy, he is showing a decade, actually 12 years of flat temperature, yes the top of a curve is higher then the preceeding part, so the trend is up from before the decade, but warmiLazy, he is showing a decade, actually 12 years of flat temperature, yes the top of a curve is higher then the preceeding part, so the trend is up from before the decade, but warming stopped in 1998. This was not predicted by the CAGW advocates.

ng stopped in 1998. This was not predicted by the CAGW advocates.
——–
David, I waded through you blog post trying to figure out what your argument is. It’s obscure and more based on assertion about private calculations rather than presentation of evidence.

It seems you have attempted to subtract the effect of El Niño from your favorite temperature data set to get the underlying trend.

This process is somewhat more honest than I have seen others use, who have exploited the 98 El Niño to fake a negative temperature trend.

However it appears that you isolate the last 12 years to get a trend which you acknowledge is statistically insignificant but then you shift over to calling it a real lack of trend. That is a fallacy.

Also I do not believe that isolating a 12 year segment to derive a trend and ignoring the information in previous years is a valid procedure.

In my view your claim for a flat trend over 12 years cannot be supported given the amount of random variation in the temperature record and an insufficienlty rigorous analysis.

P.S. I believe the ENSO subtraction procedure has been done elsewhere and produced different results and was explained more clearly. Maybe Tamino or Eli perhaps?

As regards the comments by poster “LazyTeenager” I can only surmise one thing: He/She has decided to completely swallow the AGW theory and not research any alternatives…. thus proving that their ‘nom-de-plume’ is very apt.
———-
I have looked at all of the alternatives. And 99 percent of the sc arguments are bad.

There are a lot of people out there who want AGW to go away. Consequently there is a huge confused mess of mutually contradictory arguments. Many climate skeptics are desperate to believe them all.

Shevva says:
January 14, 2011 at 12:39 am
I see Lazy Twonks hanging around here trolling as usual, all hot air no substance
———
My postings were in some cases in response to other OT posts. So maybe I should not be feeding the trolls.

But i think the real issue here is that you can’t come up with a decent argument so you respond by lying and calling me a troll.

Paul Vaughan says:
January 14, 2011 at 10:25 am
“There are very few people capable of figuring out natural climate variations (e.g. Corbyn & Trenberth). Tying them up at committee with distracting politics puts a thick bottleneck, if not a cork, on vital progress.”

What gives you reason to believe Trenberth is capable of figuring out natural climate variations? Is there any evidence that leads you to believe this?

From the introduction to Trenberth’s talk: “For many years now I have been an advocate of the need for a climate information system, of which a vital component is climate services, but it is essential to recognize that good climate services and information ride upon the basic observations and their analysis and interpretation.”Amen. But he and his gang do not abide by this ideal. The best possible information about climate comes from global temperature measurements by satellites but all of them – NASA, NOAA, and the Met Office – use their own secretive sources. Why is that? It is because satellite temperature measurements show that the world is not warming and prove that the “warming” that is supposed to have started in the late seventies did not happen. There is no way to interpret satellite records any other way and that is why they are ignored. And that warming that is concocted for the eighties and nineties that satellites cannot see is the famous warming that Hansen introduced to the Senate in 1988. “Global warming has started and we are responsible because of the CO2 we are putting in the air” he testified. Just where did he get this info I wondered. Checking the 1990 IPCC report, there is a global temperature chart in it that must have been available to him. It shows no warming from the fifties to the seventies and then a sudden start to warming in the late seventies. That would give Hansen a ten year warming to talk about in 1988. But in his written statement to the Senate he talks of a twenty-five year warming period. Where did that suddenly come from? It turns out that when he testified to the Senate he used his own private temperature curve that he and Lebedeff had just published before the meeting This is known as pulling a Deus ex machina to reach an otherwise unattainable goal. There were papers in the literature questioning his assertion that the warming was anthropogenic but they were ignored. When the full satellite record is analyzed it shows that the only global warming within the last thirty one years was a short spurt that started with the super El Nino of 1998, in four years raised global temperature rose by a third of a degree, and then stopped. Its cause was warm water brought over by the super El Nino of 1998. It was followed by a six year warm period – the twenty-first century high – but no further warming. A third of a degree may not sound like a lot but it is fully half of what has been attributed to the entire twentieth century. That is why the first decade of our century has been unusually warm. There is Arctic warming but that one is not anthropogenic either It started suddenly more than a century ago when a rearrangement of North Atlantic current system started to direct warm currents to the north. Our climate now is an alternation of warm El Nino and cool La Nina periods that started with a La Nina cooling in 2008. That is our future, not any imaginary carbon dioxide greenhouse catastrophe.

> In the last 100 years, the globe had TWO warming phases. The first was from 1910 to 1940 and the second was from 1970 to 2000, and their global warming rate was about 0.15 deg C per decade giving a warming of 0.45 deg C. In the intermediate 30-years period from 1940 to 1970, there was slight global cooling.

> Based on these observed data, as the global warming rate of the two global warming phases were identical, the effect of human emission of CO2 for 60-years has not increased the global warming rate. Though CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the observed data says it has no effect on the global temperature trend. Observation should win theory all the time.
>
1) It is correct that the warming has occurred in two phases. However
the exact points you choose influence the outcomes in terms of rates and
duration. Does the first phase go to 1940 or 1945? What about the
abrupt reversal in the early 1940s? The second phase starts about 1975
and continues to the present. It has not stopped. The first 8 months of
this year are by far the highest on record. Throughout the record one
can pick places to stop and start and they are mostly arbitrary. It is
not an appropriate way to interpret the record as a piecewise set of lines.

2) Why should the rate of warming change? How do you draw your
conclusion? It is certainly wrong.

3) The warming in the first phase was not global but focussed in the
North Atlantic. It was related to changes in the ocean. The warming in
the southern hemisphere is more steadily upwards: no steadying off or
downphase. So the patterns of change also matter.

4) CO2 increases slowly. The effects are small compared with natural
variability from year to year and only on time scales of about 25 years
or longer should one expect to see CO2 warming. Indeed it is
happening: The record has warmed by 0.8C Given the large warming,
well outside the natural variability of about 0.2C, CO2 must have had an
effect: or something else.

> In addition, since 2000, the global warming rate has been flat as shown in the following plot.